Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Proposal to amend ban on SRQ imposed at ANI: from 1 year to indef

• SkagitRiverQueen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Community-banned unanimously for 1 year for "constant issues with collegial editing"[1] (only to have the ban reset after subsequent sockpuppetry[2]) SRQ continues to disrupt article and userspace through her use of different IPs and named accounts that are routinely being discovered. When the initial ban was reset, it was to be followed by an indefinite block after the ban's expiration: I propose implementing a permanent siteban instead so that her edits can continue to be reverted on sight. The socking has become more frequent and harassing in nature towards her usual targets Crohnie (talk · contribs) and especially DocOfSoc (talk · contribs), and there is neither hope nor intention of this former editor returning constuctively here. With a lengthy and growing list of mostly "one-or-two-off" IP sockpuppets, she mocks the CheckUser process by challenging its ability to detect her, and has recently taken to blaming others for her sockpuppetry[3] (while blatantly and disruptively socking). Many diffs can be provided upon request, but I feel there is more than sufficient cause for a permanent community siteban to be implemented, rather than the fixed-duration community ban that is overdue for another "reset". Doc talk 04:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note This is a request to amend the ban from 1 year to indefinite, so I have updated the header. It appears that there are 21 confirmed socks, 68 suspected socks, and possibly more that have not been tagged. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per Bwilkins, HJ Mitchell, EdJohnston, and others below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• Strongly Support Comment to follow. DocOfSoc (talk) 07:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think she's gone completely out of hand. She still made an entirely constructive revert to a living person just recently before she was blocked. Minimac (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support Clearly SRQ cannot adhere to Wikipedia's rules. One occasional good revert does not make up for the harassment and socking she's done and continues to do. AniMate 07:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support I originally had hoped that she would see WP:OFFER or return after the block to edit constructively. I also supported the revdel of her very personal request since it showed some humility and seemed the right thing to do. However, the behavior before the block was so disruptive that when coupled with a complete lack of respect for the block and thumbing her nose at the community (especially the admin who showed some heart) means that it seems appropriate. If an extension of indefinite does not have consensus then it at least needs to be reset to the last edit confirmed to be by a sock and maybe even extended for continued disruption.Cptnono (talk) 07:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support Enough is enough, once you start socking that much there's no hope. --Rschen7754 07:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support. The disruption was so persistent that the 1-year ban was unanimous, and this degree of socking is simply outrageous. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support This user will never stop. She has admitted to stalking my edits and that of DocOfSoc over at Wikipedia Review where she immediately set up an account after she was blocked. The latest sock that was blocked put this disgusting message on my talk page on 11/08/10. There are more of her going to editors that don't know her to cause problems like this on 10/26/10. If there is a checkuser about I would also appreciate a checkuser done to get rid of any sleeper accounts she may have too since she said she would set up a bunch of accounts to drive us crazy. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support, with the proviso that "indef" in this case means "at least 1 year" from its imposition. Mjroots (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Unfortunate support I'm one of those who believe that SRQ was pushed into a series of actions that led to the original block. However, their actions since that time have led me to believe that they don't give two craps about policy around here. They had a chance to perhaps come back. They blew it and got a 1 yr ban. They then had a chance to come back after that, and they continue to thumb their nose at policy. Well sorry, as much as I supported them originally, I have to say "feckit, you wasted my faith in you". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC) No longer 100% convinced. Also, responses to my question below are from those with whom SRQ has significant non-positive interaction which waters down the overall argument. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• Reluctant support. It's always a great shame when it comes to this for a once productive editor, but we can't excuse the repeated socking when it's used to harass and attempt to upset other editors. SRQ, on the off chance that you might read this: Please, stop this nonsense, disengage with Wikipedia and serve your time quietly before it's too late for you ever to return. Indefinite does not yet have to mean infinite. Yet. But if you keep this up it will. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support, having had quite enough after participating in the latest unblock-my-sock discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support -- If this editor ever decides to start behaving well, and wants to return to the encyclopedia, they know what they have to do. No sign of that so far. The IPs would be hard to rangeblock, and there is a large number of them. See the suspected and confirmed socks as well as WP:Sockpuppet investigations/SkagitRiverQueen/Archive. EdJohnston (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose procedurally. Because of the model currently in place on WP, indef bans to stop sockpuppetering simply don't work because making a new account or switching IPs to get around a block is too easy. It's best to give the user the possibility to give up sockpuppeting and a chance to come back. -Atmoz (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Support I doubt it will help keep the socks away. Someone who already does this much socking is probably not going to stop. On the other hand, enough is enough. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 01:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support It won't stop the socking, but it will make it easier to deal with. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 02:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose with great respect for the editors dealing with this problem, understanding of the scope, and willingness to help out. I see no concrete solution proposed here, it looks like fist-shaking to me. I understand the concerns about violating 3RR, and I restored the description of longstanding practice from the memory hole. There is no doubt here that SRQ is currently community-banned for 1 year from the date of last reset and all editors are empowered to revert ban-evading edits on sight, a named exemption from 3RR. If there is a one-year period of absolute silence, the editor will still have to clear the hurdle of asking for relief of their indef block, which can be commented on then. I find the worry that a naive admin will unblock without seeing the blatantly obvious red flags unpersuasive, and even so an indef block will just happen again if there is bad behaviour. I agree with Atmoz' comment on the value of offering a possible redemptive pathway and regard this proposal as purely punitive as it will not help to prevent anything. Franamax (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with arguments made above.--scuro (talk) 03:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, as above, and my comment below; this is moot, against the spirit of WP:DENY, and the editors militating for this need to learn to ignore the troll they're feeding. RLY, Jack Merridew 03:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

  Your opinion was already fully considered amongst the "1" in the "3-1" figure with your earlier post: even "littluns" have a "clue" sometimes. Shall we keep this open another five days? Don't want to be "militating" about it, but is consensus going to sway completely the other way? Don't put your popcorn away, Jack, cause it ain't going nowhere. Good show... Doc talk 04:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

  I'm sure SRQ is enjoying your show. Jack Merridew 06:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Serious question

As I would hate to impose a permaban on anyone based on evidence that was not beyond doubt, I have a serious question. First, I believe SRQ was on Verizon - which admittedly has thousands of editors coming from there. As such, SPI's would be quite a challenge. I know I gave a pretty damning !vote above, so I want to ensure that the socking is really coming from them. "Suspected" socks means squat to me. Even supposedly "proven" socks can mean that someone is an excellent impersonator - and we have had damn well enough of those. What really are the odds that someone is not effing us over and pulling some damned fine wool over our eyes? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it would have to be the most epic case of sophisticated trolling ever if that were true. Socks like recently revealed Lazuli Bunting (talk · contribs) edit obscure articles that SRQ is the prime editor for[4] in ways identical to her (esp. changing to surnames later throughout the article)[5], and then try to get the same two users (Crohnie and DocOfSoc) "in trouble". That is how they are discovered: the socks keep repeating the same behavior. Some socks like True Crime Reader (talk · contribs) last a bit longer, until they predictably start harassing the same users and frequenting articles that SRQ did. With her avowed devotion to edit here, and admitted off-site socking[6], I can't see anyone wasting their time to so closely imitate her. The massive list of suspected IPs was compiled when the SPI was in progress, and the attempt to confuse by changing IPs so frequently is obvious and still continues. A contribution check for any IP or sock, suspected or confirmed, shows this can be no one else. I received an off-wiki legal threat from SRQ just two months ago in response to referencing her medical condition on someone's talk page (which she revealed on WP); and she recently responded instantly with IP socks (always Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon) after I tagged a sock that I was wrong about being her. She's actively watching, socking, and stalking edits, and there's no reason not to be positive that 99% of these are her. I've repeatedly asked for CU backup to tie named accounts together: to no avail. Doc talk 18:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment as promised with "Strongly support, earlier" I made my first edit in Wiki on April 8, 2008. From November 4, 2008 until the present, I have been maligned, excoriated, libeled, vastly insulted and stalked by SRQ, minus the few months I did not edit, totally discouraged and nursing my bites inflicted by SRQ, when I was an admittedly clueless "Newbie". She dragged my name thru ANI, without informing me, which discouraged admins from assisting me, when I begged for help. Too bad she took this road, she is a bright, talented editor, who can not hide her obsessive and unfounded loathing for me and others. (for her personal agenda tool lengthy to list here) Despite her egregious interference, I have survived to edit another day with great support. She must be unequivocally stopped. She has an admitted "medical condition" which affects her judgment, and enhances her ability to inflict pain. After 2 and half years, (it felt much longer,) 17 ANI complaints, 21 confirmed socks and 68 suspected socks, it is time for all of us to admit that her case for being a Wiki editor is hopeless. I do not state this lightly and do so without any retaliatory or vengeful motives whatever. She is sad case.DocOfSoc (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Addendum to Serious question: Bwilkins, you have been an enviable supporter of SRQ. I never report a sock puppet of hers unless I am 100% sure. Having been her target literally hundreds of times, I can assure you. when I know, I know unequivocally. Bless your good heart and honest efforts. DocOfSoc (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Good question, and I'm not seeing much of an answer beyond we know srq when we see her. Now, I do expect some are correctly identified, but also believe that there's a pretty wide tarring-brush in-hand; like all of Verizon ;) Jack Merridew 04:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the same response to similar concerns[7]. Which socks do you think are incorrectly identified? Do tell... Doc talk 04:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea; I said expect, not know. Get it? I'm Ignoring most of this; I recommend the practice to you folks. You have much experience with the real trolls? What do they want? (your attention;) Jack Merridew 06:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This is hardly a "cause", Jack. As far as "real" trolls: a troll is a troll. Some are just better at it than others. Doc talk 06:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You know Jack it's easy to say ignore it until your orange bar lights up for some vulgar message from the troll. Now what to do, do tell please? User page is protected already, don't want my talk page protected too, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

See the history of my user and talk pages; I'm quite sure there's much more^{and nastier} trolling in them than in your pages' histories. And more has been oversighted. What you do is revert, and ignore it. Sometimes, others will do the reverting for you; I believe I've reverted trolling to your talk page. My user page is semi'd-forever, and my talk was for something like a year; see log. You folks really don't see how you're perpetuating this, do you? Jack Merridew 18:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

What I would like to see is if any of SRQ's primary detractors have ever edited from a Verizon account. Ever. On top of that, have any of her detractors used Wikipedia's e-mail this user function to SRQ. Have any of her detractors been less than professional. Have any of them been stupid enough to suggest something childish like "don't mess with me". As we have seen below, it's damned easy to be on Verizon, and it's damned easy to be a prick from any ISP. Pinning it all on one person is pushing it, and loudly replying to every single statement on an ANI that seeks to permanently ban someone absolutely reeks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I have only 1 IP for myself and I don't have Verizon which editors here have emailed with me can verify. I have emailed with those you are assuming bad faith right now and they are also not on Verizon. I've received an email from SRQ but I didn't respond. I'll tell you what Bwilkins, you have my permission to email me and I promise to respond back so you can see my account info, how's that? I know checkusers wouldn't check for this accusation you are making but emailing each other definitely would so, do you want to try it? I've absolutely no doubt that the editors you are accusing are not setting her up and they are also not Verizon users. Send the emails since you started this. The question I would like to ask, are you in contact with SRQ now because your comments are not like you, at least not anything I've seen from you before? --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually this fits in 100% with my philosophy that "everyone has something to add to Wikipedia". IMHO, SRQ's original block was manufactured. Everything single additional activity stems from that one railroading. If someone has manufactured something once, then they'll do it again and again and again. Yes, I know there's been confrontations, but no one side was ever 100% responsible, and no one side was ever 100% absolved from being at least partly responsible. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

How was she railroaded? Please supply difs for this because I don't know what you are referring to. Your an administrator, if you felt she was railroaded than why didn't you unblock her and say so? --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Oddly enough, if we unblocked her one primary account we would likely see a) two or three pitbulls trying to push her into some kind of negative response so that they can say "see!! she's a witch!", b) a bunch of socks all pretending to be her so that people can say "see!! she's a witch!", and/or c) enough WP:ROPE to see her hang herself, and then we'll all say "see!! she was a witch'". Of course, I'm one admin, I go by WP:CONSENSUS, and unblocking her single-handedly might be considered to be WP:WHEEL. Of course, any such unblock would have had to include some significant interaction and editing restrictions. But, that's all hypothetical and in many ways unrelated to this discussion. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You've made claims here of bad faith like her being railroaded and editors setting her up. I asked for difs for these claims and you have not provided any. Please provide some difs for accusations you are making or refactor the edits where you are personally attacking editors with unjust statements. I know I haven't done anything to cause any of this and you pretty much say so on your talk page but anyone reading this report will not know this. You have attacked the integrety of good editors here. So again, please supply difs or strike your comments. I've taken pride in my work here and the hard work of getting respect from others. I do not think any of us should have to have comments made like you are making go without proof of any malfeasant. Also, are you in contact with her via email? I think this is a fair question to ask at this time since you have chosen to attack editors like you are. I just want you to be fair so I look forward to the difs or your stiking your claims. Thank you in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

If you ever see me actually make official accusations, I will ensure that I provide diffs. Please do not let your emotions (and they are valid based on the interaction that you have had with this person) get in the way of the way of reading my statements. Some of the people who I believe helped the railroading have themselves been gone from Wikipedia for some time. When I say a name, I'll provide diff's. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that because the multiple allegations and insinutaions you've made in this thread are not "official" you are not required to support them with diffs? I think not, and I think you had best stop attempting to bully editors who have been the target of unwarranted attacks from SRQ. It's perfectly reasonable for you to ask for confirmation that suspected SRQ socks are what they're said to be, but it's not reasonable to pick on the victims of whomever is behind the campaign of harrassment. Please stop and back away. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

FFS, I am not picking on any victim - quite the opposite, thank you. I have an editor attacking me because they believe I'm talking about them althogh I keep saying I'm not talking about them. I'm not sure how many more frickin times I need to say it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

If you're not talking about them, then who are you talking about? Who are a) the two or three pitbulls; and b) the putative sockmasters who will pretend to be SRQ? You must have someone in mind, or did you just construct the scenario out of thin air? Franamax (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am certainly being referred to as one of the "pitbulls", as the filer of this report and the SPI: no biggie, really. The one who has been gone for "some time" was another SRQ victim who also happened to have a lot of other enemies on WP - and anyone familiar with this case knows who that is. She didn't even participate in the original ban discussion, and can't be blamed for SRQ's situation. How SRQ became the victim of people "pushing" her or "railroading" her is quite beyond me: I do know that she never seemed to understand the concept of WP:NOTTHEM. And still not one example of sock that is possibly misidentified - just that there must be one or more. The theory of others "pretending" to be her is, IMHO, "highly unlikely".

As far as this "Do not mess with me" and e-mail business: clearly you've been in contact with her, and that's no crime. Would you like me to provide you with the legal threat against myself and WP she initiated to my Gmail account, along with my response through Gmail and not WP's "email this user" (which sure as hell does tell her not to mess with me when threatening me with a ludicrous and unfounded lawsuit - if that's "stupid" or "childish" so be it)? I'd be more than happy to provide it. Doc talk 21:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Question #2

What happens now? Does the ban reset? What are we supposed to do when she is here again and she will be, the same as always or have the rules changed about how we do the reporting? These too are serious and not sarcastic questions. I just don't understand what the purpose of doing this was for again, so here I am to find out. Oh and is there a chance that a checkuser is about to check for a sleeper accounts so we can at least know she hasn't built up a cache of awaiting accounts like she said? Thanks for your responses, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Before this discussion, the ban was only for 1 year; each time the user tried to violate it, the ban would be reset each time (making a nightmare trying to figure out when the ban expires after each violation). Presuming that the user was not detected for 1 year (or stopped socking), then the ban would no longer be in force. This would leave the indef block that an admin imposed - in order to have that lifted, the user would then only need to convince 1-2 admins that no more socking would occur and then that would be that; they'd be free to edit.

What this discussion does is make the ban indefinite so that there's a more stringent requirement than convincing 1-2 admins - now, the user will need to appeal to the Community before they can be unblocked under any circumstances. There's also no longer a need to go through the complicated process (for each violation) of resetting the ban because now the ban is not for a definite (1 year) duration; it's in place (indefinitely) for as long as the Community deems necessary, so there's nothing to reset (as such). Edits by that user can be reverted as if they are obvious vandalism rather than worrying about whether the ban has been properly reset or not.

Hope that helps. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it does help, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Move To Close

With this being a few threads away from being archived without decision, having been here twice as long as the "24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members"[8], and having a rather decisive 14-3 consensus of support, I feel it's time for an uninvolved administrator to close this thread with the decision to move SRQ down to the appropriate spot on the List of banned users as a result of this discussion. Doc talk 01:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Bzzt. This user is already banned with an expiry of indef. This thread is nothing more than a failure to deny recognition. You want SRQ to stop? Then stop responding to teh soks. Dropping each other notes about the lastest IP from Verizion, posting SPI junk about them, and regularly coming to ANI is exactly what perpetuates this. WP:RBI, littluns. Jack Merridew 01:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ, Jack (good to see ya again, BTW). She's banned for a limited and ambiguously "re-setting" duration, not indef: that's what this thread is about. When socks continue to come at and harass "teh" editors (whether they "respond" or not), it's not about just WP:RBI. This should clarify whether she's banned with an expiry of indef. "It's not going to make her stop socking" is not the best reason to oppose extending the ban, IMHO. A large segment of editors on that list were banned because of socking subsequent to their community bans. Doc talk 01:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, SRQ is blocked indef and I very much doubt any admin would be willing to unblock if she asked, so it is a de facto permaban already. And I don't think there's any ambiguity in the resetting of the one year community ban, it gets reset every time SRQ uses a sock. Every time. She has to stay away for one whole year, and after that try to convince someone that she understands her errors - I really doubt that will happen, but I agree with the few dissenting voices that removing all possibility of redemption is either counterproductive or pointless. Franamax (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The primary everyday functional difference between a community ban and a permanent indef block is that the banned user's editing can be reverted on sight, and does not put the reverting editor at risk of a 3RR violation. If the de facto permaban also allows this to occur, then I suppose there is little difference between them. Still, considering her behavior since being blocked, I think it would be more fitting for her to have to convince the community at large to be reinstated, as she would if community banned, rather than simply convincing any single administrator, who may or may not be totally aware of the circumstances, to unblock her once her one year ban is up (if it ever is). (I would hope that any admin approached by her would perform the due diligence of checking into the background story, but stranger lapses have happened.) For these reasons, I still believe a community ban is called for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I think that if your communbity ban has expired but you are still blocked, you are still a banned editor, and if you get into an edit war using sock puppets, which is the only way the issue could come up, it would seriously prejudice your unblock request - so if the editor truly changes their behaviour, this won't happen. They will still have to pass the unblocking hurdle, and that won't be 'til at least 23Jul next year, but as far as I'm concerned will be a year from, like, 3 days ago. After that I guess I would just use "rv - block evasion / banned user" and do it as much as needed. Who would file the complaint, or better, has there been a problem with this before? But really, if you're spending as much time as to make 3 reversions you should pass it to an admin before the troll wins. So if I saw it happening in a pattern I would pass it over to AIV first, to get a quick response or RFPP if appropriate, then AN/I if needed, at which point I would claim immunity to 3RR if it ever came up. Defending the wiki, done properly, is a pretty high card to play. As far as the editor being unblocked by a naive admin, I would say trust the reviewing admin, but that might make you spit milk up through your nose. :) Seriously though, I think the admins who watch the unblock requests learn pretty quickly about their orange bar lighting up and they probably wouldn't miss the half-dozen comments below the unblock request. But even so, that possibility presupposes one whole year (minus 3 days) of total quiet. That would be a good thing IMO. Franamax (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

SRQ is already a "unique case" on the list of banned users under "Bans of fixed duration (currently active)", having a far longer entry because of the original reason for banning, and because of the clarification of the reset. To keep that page accurate, another reset notice (and another admin resetting) would have to be added, and this entry would become even less "standard" pretty quickly I would think. Several of her off-site postings at the "troll forum" (where, not surprisingly, she is also socking, even by their standards) prove utter contempt for this project, the same old stubborn determination that she is right and WP is fundamentally wrong, and a hypocritical "flip-flop" in her former condemnation of socking (I've got the diffs and can present them here, but DFTT, right?). SRQ could have waited out the ban and honored it, and she did (and does) not. She could have socked away peacefully, editing content, and never been discovered: but the same disruptive edit-stalking behavior always resurfaces. All of her socks were discovered initially because of disruption, and only after adding "2 and 2" with the edit histories was it painfully obvious who it was in each case. She does not want to participate in a community project: she wants it her way. And there is no changing that.

WP:List of banned users states under "Banned by the Wikipedia community": "Users who alienate and offend the community enough may eventually be blocked indefinitely by an administrator with no administrator willing to unblock them. Although this has, at times, been considered a de facto ban, only an official community (or ArbCom) WP:BAN allows any editor to automatically revert all edits by banned users (and their sockpuppets) without violating WP:3RR." An indefinite block does not equal a community ban. I further think that it would be more unusual to keep resetting this ban, especially when she's apparently made no effort to actually appeal her initial ban (and still could, even if her ban was extended to indefinite) than it would be to make the next logical step and simply "file her in" with the rest of the community-banned users. Doc talk 02:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Just on the first point, at this moment that user list says no such thing. [9] That was changed two months ago by an editor who appears to now be retired because xe couldn't stand the admin bullying, and for the life of me I couldn't find any discussion of such a major change in guidance. If someone can show me though where this all came about that we are not free to revert serial abusers, do tell and I will fall in line. Else I'll just use IAR and my own definition of banned - which means "you blew it, go away" for whatever duration it is or forever if no-one can be bothered to unblock. Franamax (talk) 10:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

@Franamax: That's all well and good, and I certainly agree with you on the theoretical level, but if there's an admin who doesn't agree with your formulation, it exposes the good-faith editor who's been reverting the latest SRQ sock's edits to being blocked for edit warring, because the underlying editor isn't (technically) banned. That hardly seems fair, or a good way to insure that GF editors will counter her disruption. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Has this been a problem in the past? If so, I would like to address it directly. I don't see amy admins jumping in to correct my formulation of "banned means banned", though it's early hours yet. Franamax (talk) 11:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Would someone please close this? There is a consensus, can anyone just update the information now or does it have to be by an administrator? Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It has to be done by an uninvolved administrator. A 3-1 consensus is still clear, but this may be an "unusual" case that gets archived despite this, apparently. Doc talk 02:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Verizon Abuses

A huge amount of abuse has come from Verizon ranges recently; see WP:ANI#Zsfgseg: Narrow range blocks seem to be possible below for more info in this. Access Denied – talk to me 19:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Access Denied, what are your recommendations? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Verizon users are impossible to stop. See my suggestions in the below thread. Access Denied – talk to me 21:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Zsfgseg: Narrow range blocks seem to be possible

Unresolved

Still waiting for a response from admin on the possibility of these rangeblocks. Access Denied – talk to me 07:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

User:MuZemike just now lifted the edit filters and rangeblocks designed to stop Zsfgseg because it was starting to seem like he was impossible to deal with and that the huge range blocks were doing more bad than good. (He has access to several /16 ranges spread out throughout a /6 range.) But now I think I've found some narrower ranges after looking at some of his IPs used:

Inside 71.247.0.0/16

71.247.0.0/18

• 71.247.18.231
• 71.247.21.15
• 71.247.31.211
• 71.247.36.167

71.247.240.0/20

• 71.247.247.222
• 71.247.249.238

Inside 71.249.0.0/16

71.249.56.0/21

• 71.249.59.77
• 71.249.61.177

71.249.64.0/21

• 71.249.64.163
• 71.249.66.28
• 71.249.71.183
• 71.249.71.184

71.249.96.0/19 (busiest range by far)

• 71.249.102.13
• 71.249.105.53
• 71.249.105.138
• 71.249.105.178
• 71.249.107.65
• 71.249.107.152
• 71.249.110.200
• 71.249.112.51
• 71.249.114.245

Inside 68.237.0.0/16

68.237.80.0/20

• 68.237.82.181
• 68.237.85.214
• 68.237.93.95

Isolated IP Addresses

• 165.155.192.79

Cheers, Access Denied – talk to me 05:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Possibly stupid, or even inappropriate question, but.... given the efforts being put into dealing with this, are we absolutely certain that Verizon will not help, or even respond, in any way, no matter how much they are asked in different ways? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Basically, there are two ways this should be approached for vandals like this (note that this is not the only active vandal; this would also pertain to the Scruffy vandal, for instance). If we're blocking and protecting too much, a different and hopefully smarter approaches to dealing with the vandalism need to be taken. The second approach is to simply stop trying; I hate to be defeatist, but if we know we cannot, with our software, stop these vandals, then there is simply nothing we can do. I know it sounds like letting the socks and vandals win, but is it worth the increased effort to go at great lengths to stop unstoppable vandals? –MuZemike 08:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

My 2c is that it is worth the increased effort (until smarter approaches are available). --HighKing (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This sockmaster must be very nasty to justify rangeblocks as large as /18 over an extended period. Nothing presented here in this report shows any serious abuse, and there are no links provided to a fuller discussion anywhere else. If User:Access Denied wants to pursue this further, they should consider opening a new report at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Zsfgseg. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

EdJohnston, this has been going on the past 6 months or so, and he is already community banned. See my talk page, User talk:The Thing That Should Not Be, this ANI page, and a couple other admins' pages to see what he does. There is very serious abuse going on here, and some people don't have the patience (unlike other users) to deal with this on a daily basis. However, I suppose that's the cross I bear, and that's my consequence for blocking the user in the first place. –MuZemike 18:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Even if we rangeblock all those IP addresses, that does not stop him from his disruption. Many times he likes to "play" with his talk page like requesting unblocks to make his block longer or says that he is Zsfgseg and that we should unblock him because he is Zsfgseg. In order to stop him, we would have to disable the range's talk page ability as well and I don't think that's a good idea. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 18:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Would an abuse report go anywhere, or would we just get the standard "thank-you for your time, have a good day" response? Also, unrelated, did I calculate those ranges properly? my point is, Wikipedia is not a play pen, no matter what he likes to think. Access Denied – talk to me 02:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• Use a script, block the 1024 /16s. Direct all complaints to the ISP. Maybe then we will get some action from them. T. Canens (talk) 04:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• Yeah, then we'd be blocking 67,108,864 IPs. That's not worth it because of one editor. And the ISP proably still would not budge. Access Denied – talk to me 04:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's bad. But "when all reasonable attempts to control...disruption...have failed, [we] may be compelled to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia and to the community" (quoting arbcom, with modifications). Same principle here. And a large number of complaints from Verizon customers is probably our best shot at getting the ISP to act. If you want to be conservative, maybe we can block each and every /16 he is on instead, but given the abuse coming from Verizon ranges,including this one, I'm not optimistic. T. Canens (talk) 06:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

    Actually about 8 or so ISPs cone from this /6. Access Denied – talk to me 07:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

    • Does he have access to all these ISPs or just Verizon? If it's just Verizon then we just need to block the Verizon ones. T. Canens (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

      Not sure; that single isolated IP traces to the New York City public school district though so we have a good idea where he lives. Access Denied – talk to me 19:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• *sigh* Either Verizon is starting to give Zsfgseg completely random IPs out of his usual ranges, or, he's discovered open proxies. Access Denied – talk to me 00:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

How should this be approached?

It seems we have four choices right now. Access Denied – talk to me 08:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Approach 1: Softblock entire /6 range

Softblock the entire /6 range, which contains over 67 million unique IPs. Use a script to block all the /16 ranges, and create a bot to hand out necessary IP Block Exemptions.

Discussion

• Do this, force Verizon to act. It's something we should consider seriously, if all else fails. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• This would be an end to the "everyone can edit" bit, which should probably have wide support and the consent of the federation. I'm not opposed to this per se, but wonder if the action might cause more churn than the vandalism which we are otherwise unable to deal with. Jclemens-public (talk) 04:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
• As fun as this might sound, I guarantee it will make us and not verizon look bad. Protonk (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

  And we'd have to change "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" to "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit... unless you use Verizon or another ISP within the same IP range". Sounds a lot less catchy. Access Denied – talk to me 22:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

  I don't want to deflate hyperbole, but we are already the free encyclopedia anyone can edit unless they are in mainland China or a TOR outlet node. Blocks are made to prevent disruption. Protonk (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe block all of the IPS and then hand out IP block expemtion accounts. Or, worst case scenario, block ALL IPS, and create an account only wiki. --Hinata talk 01:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Would that really help? For one vandal? ResMar 18:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I would suspect those suggesting to block all IPs are suggesting it because they think it will have a deterring effect on vandalism in general, and not just one vandal. It might be illuminating to have a 1-2 month trial of editing by accounts only. While that would substantially decrease IP vandalism (obviously), it might simply increase account registration by vandals, unless some other systems were put into place. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Approach 2: Softblock all Verizon IPs

Go through the /6 range and softblock all IP ranges which belong to Verizon. An incredible amount of abuse has come from Verizon IPs, including Zsfgseg and Grawp AKA Hagger.

Discussion

Approach 3: Selectively block /16 ranges

Individually review contributions from each /16 range using X!'s tool. Hardblock the ones in which the vast majority of edits are abusive. Use CheckUser to hand out necessary IP Block Exemptions.

Discussion

Approach 4: Implement narrow rangeblocks as suggested above

Implement the narrow rangeblocks suggested above. Use checkuser to hand out IPBE, and make more narrow rangeblocks if the need arises.

Discussion

To me, this is the best choice. Major collateral damage is a big no no. Access Denied – talk to me 08:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Contacting the ISP should be the first step, preferably coming from someone with the authority to say they're speaking for the Foundation rather than just as a concerned editor or admin. If that fails, we can and should block as necessary. But it seems improper to just assume the ISP won't care and won't do anything without even trying first. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • We tried it with Grawp, IIRC. Verizon didn't seem to care. T. Canens (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, as I recall, several attempts have been made to contact Verizon with no luck whatsoever. The Thing ^T/_C 19:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

      Are you kidding me? That idiot wasted hundreds of hours of admins time, spent all his free time libeling people, outer hundreds of Wikipedia editors by mass-creating hundreds of accounts the included their phone numbers (or so I've heard) and they don't care? What is wrong with those people? Access Denied – talk to me 19:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

      Verizon is a business. It'll only react when the situation affects its Public Relations, and most Verizon costumers don't give a damn about Grawp or Wikipedia's problems. In fact, the media often paints Wikipedia as the problem rather than the victim. Verizon handles abuse on its Internet service the same way Google handles abuse on YouTube. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree, Verizon (or nearly any ISP) would just say it's our fault for creating a user-editable website. However they might care if we decided to simply block all Verizon IP's, and create a custom block message that says "Due to abuse from this ISP, all editing has been disabled." Though I wouldn't suggest doing that, personally, we'd be well within our rights to do so. I believe we once did something similar with AOL, which led to AOL changing their internal system to support XFF headers to make it easier for us to distinguish one AOL user from another. See Wikipedia:AOL. We even created a custom block template {{AOLblock}} to explain to those users why they were blocked. When they began using XFF headers the repeated blocks were no longer necessary. That solution would not work here, though, because this user is changing IP's by himself rather than having AOL do it automatically. —Soap— 21:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Yup. Verizon could give a shit about wikipedia's problems. Basically in order to get any serious action from an ISP about an account you either need to sue them (RIAA) or wait until the person commits a crime and get the cops involved. Otherwise they don't care. Protonk (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

  I thunk he was actually reported to the cops after the phone number incident (I'm gonna go find the ANI thread) Access Denied – talk to me 21:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive511#I_have_reported_Grawp_to_my_police_department Access Denied – talk to me 21:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to note, I have reported him to the FBI more than once for certain threats of his, with no replies at all. The Thing ^T/_C 21:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you phoned them or done it by email? If you've emailed, try phoning. Maybe a report from the WMF might carry more weight? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

We could always try tipping off the media, since they're every company's best friend or worst enemy, and in this situation they might just be verizon's worst enemy. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 01:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I like the narrow range blocks for now, but I think that forcing ISPs that quickly (as in less than 24 hours) cycle IPs to customers should understand that those policies lead to consequences, such as range blocks. Persistent vandals that find a workable system cause serious problems, to the degree that the soft blocks are less disruptive in many cases. This may be one of those. Shadowjams (talk) 11:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Approach 5: Require Registration

Maybe things are not serious enough yet, but eventually they will be, and Wikipedia will be compelled to ask itself, "Why do we give ourselves all this trouble? Why not require registration? It would still allow 'anyone' to edit." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that would make sense. (See above on my comment) But... that would mean we would have to change "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" to " The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit with an account". However, I would just block all IPs from Verizon. But allow them to make accounts. --Hinata talk 16:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

That could be done as a "pilot", and then maybe generalized. Requiring registration would not stop "anyone" from editing. They would merely have to have an account. If the trolls don't like it, too bad. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(Copying from above) It might be illuminating to have a 1-2 month trial of editing by accounts only. While that would substantially decrease IP vandalism (obviously), it might simply increase account registration by vandals, unless some other systems were put into place at the same time. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Approach 6: Revert, Block, Ignore

There are people out there who gain extreme amusement in the childish game of creating disruption and then laughing at the mayhem they cause. No matter what we do, they will find ways to disrupt this website and others that allow anyone to post. This entire thread is exactly what these people want. The proper course of action is to revert the vandalism, block the username or ip, and ignore their behavior. By denying recognition of the user and refraining from glorifying their exploits here at ANI, we achieve the goal of minimizing the disruption. N419BH 18:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the block should be done at the /18 level, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

We can't just ignore it. We must act. --Hinata talk 20:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

"No matter what we do" is true given that nothing changes. If wikipedia stays the course with "anyone can edit", then there is indeed nothing practical that can be done. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=396773203&oldid=396772613 looks like he's watching us --Hinata talk 21:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

And he's blocked. For all of 2 weeks. The flaw in the RBI theory is that the average wikipedia citizen has no power to block these birds, so the matter has to be brought here, where it gets debated and the troll cackles at the attention it's getting. If any admin has an idea how to get around that problem, I'd like to hear it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

That gives me an idea. Selected users have the rollback privilege, and if they abuse it, that privilege can be yanked with little hesitation. Maybe selected users could also have something called "temporary block" privilege, which would allow a trusted user to block an IP-hopping vandal or sock for up to 24 hours (or whatever figure), such blocks requiring review by an admin, but at least it would stop the bleeding and might cut back on the ego-massaging chatter here. And if a user misuses it, as with rollback, e.g. in a content dispute, then they lose the privilege and potentially get blocked themselves. It could be worth a try. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact that Zsfgseg supported this approach pretty much tells us that it's not going to work, he knows that it's not going to work, and he's trying (and failing) to use reverse psychology to lure us into this. Access Denied – talk to me 22:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Longevity-related articles

A number of editors are concerned that articles related to long-lived people are being treated as a walled garden. Various threads are going at FTN and RSN, plus discussion on a number of talk pages and WikiProject World Oldest People. There is an open medcab mediation on Longevity myths, currently moving very slowly. It would take anyone a while to read up on it all, and I don't expect that. But I would really appreciate effective action on the conflict of interest issue. This thread on COIN has not resulted in any clear-cut yes or no. The diffs are provided there. Could a completely uninvolved admin look into it? Otherwise, I fear that it will drag on into an ArbCom case. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)J Just a comment by some one who has been observing the COI and WP:MEDCAB case and Related threads, and see mostly conensus against you. Thus I personally view this a Forum shopping. Focus on the WP:MEDCAB case resolve issue there instead of coming here to get something done about Ryoung122 The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

As someone who I guess is involved at this point, or at least outspoken, I don't see a consensus against Judith. I see general disinterest in addressing this issue. Yes all the wikiproject members don't agree with Judith, but what neutral voices have really weighed in here? Most of the posts, at various noticeboards, have just fallen on def ears. Personally I think this is a shame, because this case represents a serious trivialization of the project.Griswaldo (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I came to this set of articles in response to a post on WP:FTN about the still-thorny question of how we handle "myth" in relation to the Bible. Before that I had not come across longevity articles at all. I have been discussing on FTN very patiently but the issues involved go beyond fringiness. So it's not forum shopping, but unpacking separate questions for appropriate dispute resolution. I left the COIN thread running for a long time to see if it would get uninvolved input. And it's far from being mostly consensus against me - see RSN today where User:GRuban has been convinced through argument. The medcab case has for several days now been just issues between me and JJB, which we could have resolved civilly on talk pages anyway. I would really like admin comment on the COI, which has in the past attracted the attention of arbitrators. RA, if you would like to comment on the medcab page then I will be interested to read your perspective. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Disinterest in a COI case is usually means lack of a real case. My observation is a our "Experts are scum" mantra in action. Ryoung122 has been an asset to area where there is a lack of expertise in Academia. So far from I what observed his work has not been anywhere near the trouble some experts have caused on Wiki. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Except for when the supposedly reliable source he runs claimed someone had died based on the word of an anonymous government official, prompting protests from a member of her family, see this for details. O Fenian (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The government (A RS!) reported her death! End of story! Not Ryoung122! I am not seeing what you want me to see in that link.The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No, the government did not report her death. Some anonymous government official told Ryoung122 she had died, and Ryoung122 reported it as fact. Since when do the deaths of living people get sourced in that way? You will also note that the editors involved in the walled garden insist that for their claim of death to be contradicted a news report stating she was alive was required.. O Fenian (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Another false accusation by O Fenian. Where did I "report" this as a fact? I certainly didn't run to Wikipedia to update Wikipedia.

In fact, you can see that, instead, I asked for a re-check:

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/14438

Is Margaret Fish still alive?

Greetings,

This message on Wikipedia is a bit disconcerting:

MARGARET FISH, WISTEAD, ENGLAND

Who decided that Margaret Fish died on 31 Jan 2010? I,m sure that her family who are gathering to celebrate her 111th birthday at Wilstead will more than a little surprised by this"FACT". Margaret is in fact alive and well. Can someone get their facts right? B. Hartgill121.44.231.36 (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.231.36 (talk)

I think we need a re-check.

Regards Moderator

Original message:

--- In Worlds_Oldest_People@yahoogroups.com, "Lissa" <melissapage24@...> wrote: > > Unfortunately Margaret Fish will not be turning 111 on Sunday - I have just found out that she died on the 31st January, leaving 9 UK 1800s cases. > > M

Ms. Page has apologized profusely for the error.

So, O Fenian, are YOU going to apologize, now that it turns out that YOU made a mistake, with a false accusation?Ryoung122 03:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I said this over at the WikiProject talkpage; expert input is welcome, but not to the exclusion of policy. To elaborate on the example I used over there, we don't allow Moonies to have the final word on what members of the Unification Church clergy are notable or the information required to insert claims about them; similarly, the experts on centenarians shouldn't have the final word on which ones are notable or what the sourcing requirements are. And no, anonymous tips to a specific editor (like the one in the example) don't pass RS; how can we possibly verify that? There is a bit of a walled garden mentality; it can definitely be fixed, but we can't have people with major COIs stonewalling every attempt to break out of said mentality— which is why I took a look at it, to give it a fresh set of eyes. I'd encourage other uninvolved editors to do the same. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I confirm everything Blade, O Fenian, Itsmejudith, and Griswaldo have said above. I'm disappointed that RA characterizes O's link as saying a RS reported the death, which indicates indifference to standard WP:BLP policy that a recent death be cited to an accessibly linked RS (or perhaps a view that Ryoung122 is a walking RS). I'm disappointed that RA characterizes the COI link, our second strong consensus that Ryoung122 has massive COI, as lack of a real case (rather than a COI finding without an enforcement option). I respectfully request an uninvolved admin make a recommendation on how to prosecute a COI finding not voluntarily admitted by the COI party nor enforced by anyone. Earlier today I listed some options here, ANI being one of them.

Though the issues are widespread, I think these are salient and diffs are available: (1) Ryoung122's return from indef block being accompanied by a promise to avoid COI, which appears totally forgotten shortly after; (2) Ryoung122's failure to comment at mediation cabal for 2 weeks now, while continuing strongly incivil and POV editing; (3) Ryoung122's propagation of POVs into many other editors' minds (some stated to be teens) over a 5-year period such that these concerns, when stated by one or two individuals, often get drowned out by an apparent consensus that is no different from (are we still calling it) meatpuppetry. Specific instances of content issues abound, but a simple one to understand is that we had a bolding war of about 15 cycles of editors restoring bolding to a date, clearly contrary to WP:MOSBOLD, citing such reasons as IAR, we've always done it this way, and all the researchers think it's important to keep the date bolded; such that an admin had to threaten a block for the very next revert. Incredibly entrenched. Looks like I've gone long again, please propose a best option. JJB 02:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)As anyone can see there is hardly a consensus against IMJ efforts. This area of the Wiki needs lots of cleanup. There is no anti-expert anything going on here and I highly resent the accusation from ResidentAnthropologist. We all recognize the expertise, and we are not arguing against it. We're simply asking for people to abide by Wikipedia policy in relation to things like WP:N, WP:V, WP:BLP etc. Ryan is an expert in an area that covers information that is mostly trivia. Good for him. But that doesn't mean we need to follow his lead an disrespect the afore mentioned policies on his say so. No way. When subjects aren't notable they should get the axe. When reliable sources are needed we need more than the word of his yahoo group and when reporting the death of a BLP we most certainly need more than his say so. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Ryoung122 even considers his fellow verifier, Louis Epstein, more a rival than a friend, and considers the GRG founder, Stephen Coles, to be less reliable than himself. If Ryoung122 thinks even the GRG pages are unreliable until he double-checks them, this is a bit more than just COI going on. Anyway, repeat, respectfully request uninvolved admin. JJB 02:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

COMMENT: THIS IS LITTLE MORE THAN WIKI-STALKING BY JJBULTEN and "friends" Itsmejudith, Grismaldo, and DavidinDC.

Ummm, if I'm to be accused of wiki-stalking, in all caps, no less, it might bolster the accusation if I had actually posted to the thread in question. Regardless of bolstering, it's required, if I'm to be discussed, that the person initiating the discussion of me put a notice on my talk page that looks like this:

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I'm just sayin' David in DC (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

First, a response to O Fenian:

Sometimes referees get calls wrong...in virtually all sports, from football to baseball to tennis. That doesn't mean they aren't the refs...and it's only a problem when they are caught cheating (as in the NBA). Margaret Fish's death was reported by the UK government, erroneously. I in fact helped clean up the mess, but when it comes to JJBulten and Itsmejudith in particular, they aren't going to let facts get in the way.

Let's examine some facts:

1. Itsmejudith and JJBulten have launched non-consensus attempts to delete or merge articles such as Oldest people and Longevity myths. This is not an issue of trying to create or save an article on every centenarian or supercentenarian. This is an issue of editors who don't particularly care for the field attempting to annihilate it.

2. We can see how JJBulten is being lawyerly in his discussion of Louis Epstein. First, he accuses me of being "friends" with Louis, now he accuses me of not being friends in an effort to isolate me. Then he attempts to divide me from Dr. Coles...this reminds me of Jesus, who after being accused of being a drunkard, said that when John the Baptist didn't drink, you said he had a demon...which way do you want it?

3. JJBulten has already identified that he has a COI: he doesn't agree with the mainstream scientific view that humans don't live to 950 years old (because the Bible says Noah was 950). I don't see him denying that, anywhere. JJBulten's actions are akin to a Creationist editing articles on Darwinism while calling out scientists as if they have a COI. I find this highly disturbing. If appeals have to be made to the Wikimedia Foundation, they will be made. Allowing a religious fundamentalist to suppress science and education on Wikipedia is simply unacceptable.

4. Speaking of divide-and-conquer, JJBulten was against Itsmejudith's attempt to delete or merge the longevity myths article, so the idea that they agree on everything is not accurate.

However, it is clear that their actions on this and other threads are not appropriate. Their own actions have been questionable at best. Comparing material on supercentenarians to articles on Moonies is like Bishop Eddie Long claiming to be David, when he is in fact Goliath.

The reality: it is, in fact, the editing of JJBulten that is religious in nature and up for discussion regarding fringe theory.

If we use Google search to find articles on Eugenie Blanchard in the news:

http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=Eugenie%2BBlanchard

We find that this is quite mainstream. In fact, it's the skeptics' point of view, not the ideas being pushed by JJBulten (pro-religious) or Itsmejudith (pro-deletionist).

This field has been around for more than 140 years. We find newspaper stories about it in the New York Times from 1909. Who is the fringe theorist here? Who is the editor who is abusing their position by attempting to use Wiki-lawyering to overturn long-established consensus?Ryoung122 20:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't you want to present something in your defence rather than chucking dirt indiscriminately in all directions? If JJB's edits unduly promote a particular religious perspective then there are ways of dealing with that. To uninvolved admins: Robert Young is a paid investigator for the Gerontology Research Group. He has authored a book, derived from his MA thesis, that is available for sale online. He clearly has experience in investigation of suggested cases of extreme human longevity and should be quite capable of making useful additions to the encyclopedia, but instead he has created a walled garden of articles that are expected to mirror - to the letter - his web pages. A group of people have been gathered in a WikiProject with a membership that overlaps with a Yahoo! group. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish. Any supposed "walled garden" of longevity articles is not down to Robert Young. Most users who regularly contribute to those articles respect his opinion as an expert on the subject. There has been considerable discussion over many aspects of these articles and frequently some disagreement. What I, and it appears many, if not most, regular contributors to those articles object to is what appears to be a campaign by a minority of users to eliminate Mr Young's contributions and impose a regime of article style and content which not only contradicts the consensus in those articles but does not appear to have any constructive merit for the articles themselves and is merely pedantic rule-following. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The "walled garden" charge falls flat once the evidence is examined. For example, the List of Living supercentenarians includes references to www.recordholders.org (the Epstein list), and instead of maintaining the exact ranking of the GRG list, merges them together.

The real issue is that Itsmejudith and JJBulten, in particular, have attempted total deletion or merging of mainline articles. If this were just an issue of whether to keep a marginal article, there wouldn't be an issue. But even though I and others supported deletion of marginal articles (such as 103-year-old and 105-year-old siblings from Ireland), there has been ZERO attempt by JJBulten to compromise anything. More than that, he then typically recruits Grismaldo. Let me be more specific. This is bullying-type behavior, sort of trying to get a three-to-one or four-to-one fight. JJBulten has even scoped out people I had issues with in the past and attempted to bring up long-dead issues that were resolved. That is nowhere near an attempt at resolution, it's an attempt to make the problem worse. It's like trying to "win an election" through negative campaign ads. But guess what? Wikipedia isn't about winning elections, it's about attempting to present encyclopedic material objectively. It's not right what JJBulten in particular has done because it's a violation of Wiki policies.Ryoung122 23:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You either aren't listening or pretending not to. Just to begin, I wasn't comparing the content of articles on supercentenarians to articles on the Unification Church or its dedicated followers, which should have been fairly obvious. What I'm actually saying is that we don't allow Moonies to hijack articles about the Unification Church, even though they would probably know far more about its inner workings than the rest of us. It's the same thing here; you may be an expert, and your input is certainly welcome, but you have to work within policies such as WP:N or WP:NPOV. I'm looking at this completely from an outside perspective, having watched but never edited the subject area, and I'm seeing a problem. When you've got several editors telling you there's a problem, you might just have to accept that there may actually be one. What I'm suggesting is that you step back from something that you're obviously very attached to and allow people with a less biased view to have a look. What you, as an expert, may consider notable may not be to everyone else; this isn't a personal thing. For instance, I'm very into Burmese history and politics, and the name Mark Farmaner is very significant to people like me; however, you'll see that the link is a redirect to the Burma Campaign UK because outside of that specific field, he's almost unknown. It's the same thing here; just ease up a bit and allow some outside input. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with what Blade said. I also came to this as an outsider. You talk of "attempted deletion" as if it were some great attack. What I actually did was start merge discussions that anyone could join in. No-one's wiki-stalking you, and I haven't even complained about your incivility. I didn't know much about longevity research as a hobby, but now I see that some people are very interested in it, I would like to see it covered appropriately on Wikipedia. The World's Oldest People WikiProject should be improving the articles in line with Wikipedia policy, rather than making them mirrors of researchers' sites. The straightforward thing to do - and a main activity of other WikiProjects - is to take articles one by one and work them up to GA then FA status. For that you need good faith collaboration by people who know and care about WP policy - input by experts in the field should also be a help rather than a hindrance. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Ryoung122 says "Margaret Fish's death was reported by the UK government, erroneously", where? Some tip-off from an anonymous Deep Throat style informant is not "reported by the UK government". You were told someone had died, you did not check your facts, you reported her death on your website, the claim was then transferred to Wikipedia prompting complaints from a member of her family that she was still alive. O Fenian (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Excuse you, O Fenian. More false charges. Let's look at the FACTS: Dr. Coles updated the GRG website regarding Margaret Fish, NOT me. If someone from Wikipedia wants to "copy" that's up to them. If you have a personal issue with this, I suggest you contact Dr. Coles at scoles@grg.org.

Ryoung122 02:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Renew COI request

Uninvolved admin, without being dissuaded by the off-topic possibilities above, please comment on Itsmejudith's request that some action be taken in relation to Ryoung122's repeatedly found COI and his failure to take voluntary action. He was indeffed Nov 2007 for harassment, disruption, and NPOV and V violations, and he returned Aug 2008, both performed by User:Maxim who is apparently 3 months on wikibreak. There was in 2008 some form of voluntary agreement, but 18 months ago I pointed out that he was not honoring it (will diff if necessary), and he hasn't ever since either, and he is strongly influencing a circle of editors sufficiently enough to review meatpuppetry policy. I trust people are watching but we need more than watching, we need a recommendation for hard action here. (I should also ask the other editors to comment: if this board shows itself as toothless as WP:COIN on this issue, is ArbCom the next step yet?) JJB 01:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you have Sheldon Lennard Cooper in a can? Would you like help putting him in one?

I was watching The Big Bang Theory tonight, when one of the characters mentioned Wikipedia. To be precise, it was Amy who mentioned it, the nerdiest of three women in the scene. These women were having a slumber party, & Amy, who had never been to a slumber party, consulted Wikipedia for ideas of what to do at one. Which led me to look at Slumber party, where I found a rather surprising assertion which I reverted. (This is the reason for my comment to Wil Wheaton in the edit summary.)

Silly me. I had no idea this assertion about "harmless experimentation in lesbianism" was an important part of the plot of tonight's episode. (I should mention here that Wil Wheaton had nothing to do with that episode, to make it clear that I am not violating any of the rules regarding WP:BLP.)

I'm not sure what more need to be done at this point than perhaps semi-protecting this article. Or maybe we can call up one of the show's creators & ask him if his refrigerator is running. But I thought some folks here might like to read about this as a change from the usual WikiDramaz. -- llywrch (talk) 05:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Ehh...I would say semi-protection not needed, most likely. It's now several hours after the show aired, and nothing has happened since you're revert, so it's not exactly moving at a fast pace. I think if a few people here who will be on for another couple hours would volunteer to watchlist it, we should be good. This might be worth posting at Wikipedia in culture, though. =) Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 05:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

That also looks like a coincidence, but I could be wrong as I don't watch that show. We're officially cool now! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Never having seen the show in question, I'm curious how Sheldon Leonard figures into the old joke about Prince Albert. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed. Wil Wheaton, Dr. Cooper's arch nemesis, made me confuse the two. (And I should know how to spell Wheaton's name; I happen to have his autograph.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • OK, so how does Sheldon Cooper connect with the old "Prince Albert" joke? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I'd prefer Wil Wheaton in a can. Several of them. HalfShadow 09:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Why do you want several Wil Wheatons? Uncle G (talk) 10:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Not several; several pieces. HalfShadow 10:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Baseball bugs: watch the show. Especially this episode, "The 21-Second Excitation". Now I know why I was the first Admin to catch this vandalism: almost no one else on Wikipedia appears to be interested in watching a tv show about the social foibles of a bunch of nerds. Then again, if no one here is interested in the activities of other nerds, then WTF are all of you reading WP:AN/I? -- llywrch (talk) 01:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I have only recently begin watching reruns of the show. As I'm not typically considered either a nerd or a geek, the show did not originally interest me. I have been quite surprised that I'm often laughing louder than I did at either Frasier or Friends. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No Legal Threats and User THF

• THF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User THF has come quite close to violating the No Legal Threats policy, here [10]. When I warned him about this, he blanked his talk page [11], as "vandalism". I filed a report to WP:COIN about THF, diff link. This user's behavior is erratic and disruptive across multiple pages on Wikipedia, probably due to the offsite conflict of interest that is ongoing. If the user cannot abide by multiple warnings given to him by separate users including Jehochman (talk · contribs) and Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs), and does not abide by No Legal Threats, then an admin should block. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no Wikipedia-related lawsuit, and there was no legal threat. Cirt is harassing me by making an inappropriate COIN report in retaliation for an editing dispute on a different article: his complaint is that I disclosed a conflict of interest and then discussed the subject on a talk page, which is explicitly permitted by WP:COI and WP:COIN. He's also violating WP:MULTI by harassing me on multiple message boards on the same topic (this is his third one). Can someone end the wikidrama and ask Cirt to stop being disruptive? Thank you. THF (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

THF (talk · contribs) has received COI warnings from multiple users including Jehochman (talk · contribs) and Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs). When a WP:COIN report is filed, he responds by posting to my talk page in close violation of No Legal Threats. That is why the issue was brought here to ANI. -- Cirt (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

This situation arises from THF's continued editing at an AfD ([12]) in relation to a BLP subject who has sued him. Continuing to post to that AfD after an administrator has advised you to stop is, well, not advisable. This issue will be handled by other editors and THF's input is neither needed nor helpful. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with this comment, by Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You can end the drama yourself, THF. I'm amazed that you do not understand the basics of the no legal threats policy. One of the very foundations of that policy is that it is not in your own interests to come to a wiki and publicly comment in writing on matters that involve lawsuits that you are currently party to. Has the recent Cooks Source infringement controversy débacle taught nothing about the errors of putting admissions in writing? Don't come here. Don't comment. You're on a wiki. Everything that you do here is in public, visible to the entire planet, and in writing. It's not in your interests to be discussing your lawsuits anywhere in Special:Contributions/THF and it is not in our interests, as people who wish no involvement in the matter ourselves and who moreover don't want the opposing parties in the lawsuit coming here and arguing their case, to let you. Take your involvement in this matter entirely outwith this project, please. Uncle G (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with everything said in this comment by Uncle G (talk · contribs). There is simply no reason for THF (talk · contribs) to continue referring to and posting about this manner on wiki in Special:Contributions/THF, over and over again. -- Cirt (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

@Uncle G (talk · contribs), I basically asked this question of THF at his user talk page, he responded by page blanking that part out. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Given the lack of helpful response from him, I suggest a short block if it continues, or possibly even now to prevent continuation. The involvement is totally improper. DGG ( talk ) 19:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • DGG, I agree with your comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#No_Legal_Threats_and_User_THF regarding THF (talk · contribs), how do you suggest admins proceed from here? You seem to be a neutral party to this particular issue involving this user THF (talk · contribs), perhaps you could carry out the admin action you have proposed? -- Cirt (talk) 05:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • the most recent edit of his I see relative to this was at 14:58, November 12, 2010 (edit) [13]. Conceivably the discussion here has convinced him to stop this line. I have left him a note to the effect that if it resumes, I shall block, in order to reinforce it. And I shall. I'll check in the morning. DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Agree with this assessment by admin DGG. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 06:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I agree with the analysis of the problem by Cirt and DGG. From now on we should have no patience for inappropriate comments by THF. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Alan Wolk he said: "I have serious concern that Wolk will sue Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors if his Wikipedia presence is not to his liking." I think a block under WP:No legal threats is justified if User:THF continues in this vein. EdJohnston (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
        • It can also be read as a well-intentioned warning. The silence can, too, be read as actually doing what was asked and not discussing this anymore anywhere on-wiki. So really there's only a problem if there's further on-wiki discussion, as DGG notes. I was going to say pretty much the same thing earlier myself. Uncle G (talk) 07:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
        • If User:THF is concerned that Arthur Alan Wolk may sue other Wikipedia editors, then he should email them, not post this speculation on Wikipedia, because that type of notice can be misinterpreted in several ways. WP:NLT is one of them. It could also be interpreted as violating WP:BLP by hypothesizing what Wolk might do. Either way, not a smart course of action to take on wiki. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
          • I would be very concerned if THF were to be blocked for warning about that BLP. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
            • I don't see anything improper or disruptive in THF's handling of his concerns. It would be improper and highly provocative for THF to email Wolk et al directly. I would take a two-step approach to handling these situations. Step one is for the community to apply normal Wikipedia standards to decide what articles should be deleted or what content should go into articles, regardless of possible legal difficulties. Step two would be that based on those decisions, parties who feel liabeled can contact the Wikimedia Foundation and then the foundation can make a cost-benefit analysis whether to fight to retain the community's content or to delete it. Please don't let the fact that a person is highly litigious influence the scope of Wikipedia's coverage or be used as a basis for silencing well-intentioned editors. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
      • THF cautioned editors to make sure that everything in that article is "true" (or let's say "verifiable"). Isn't that the standard caution regarding any BLP? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Xe did a bit more than that. Xe also nominated this article for deletion, for example. Uncle G (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
        • There is also the question of which part of WP:COI THF is actually supposed to have violated. Hasn't he followed WP:COI to the letter, restricting himself to talk pages, and not editing anything in mainspace? Don't get me wrong, I do think it is better for him and the project that he has stopped commenting about the case on talk pages here. I commend him for stopping, even though he may feel it is unfair -- I think he may just be too involved in the situation to see it with outside eyes. But he has asked, several times, what part of WP:COI he has infringed, and as far as I can tell he has never received an answer. I think the reason is that there isn't an answer in policy, and it is just the judgment of several admins (which I share) that his edits were somehow not helpful. --JN466 17:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
          • I can't say about the letter of COI, but it seems to me that as a general practice, an editor should totally stay away from anything that involves him in some way, and especially should keep quiet about real-world issues. As well-meaning as he might have been, the statement that he's been involved in a suit with that guy should have no bearing whatsoever on the appropriateness (or not) of the article. That's his problem, not wikipedia's problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
            • It's more than that. The other party in the case now has public written statements to point to. Then there's the whole we-demand-that-we-have-right-of-reply possibility that it opens up, that we have no interest in, this being a project to write an encyclopaedia. And finally there's something that even non-lawyers know: You don't discuss an active civil action that you are currently party to in public, in writing, if you are wise.

              That said, we have this now. What's desired is what's going to happen, because several people all asked. No blocks; no drama; no muss; no fuss. Uncle G (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

            • Again, this issue arose because of continued participation in the AfD (which COI strongly discourages) after being advised not to do this by an admin. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
• To be fair, THF did not try to promote AfD outcomes that favored him. Wolk lost the lawsuit that THF nominated for deletion. What does THF have to gain from giving less visibility to a lawsuit that Wolk lost? The main problem was the WP:BATTLE tone of those posts [14] [15] —continuation of dispute started outside Wikipedia, even if only in rhetorical terms. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
• @Nomoskedasticity. If an admin advises someone to do something which is not based in policy and they don't oblige then how does that become an issue? It may be good practice for him to stay away from the AfD and the talk pages, but it isn't policy to do so. Repeatedly advising him to stay within good practice is commendable, and he seems to have obliged, but if he is sanctioned simply because he didn't follow the non-policy based advise of an admin then we have serious problems here. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
• Also, someone ought to address THF's concerns about the editor who posted this and several other threads about THF's COI. THF's concerns are also worthy of a fair hearing.Griswaldo (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

THF has agreed on his talk page to cease commenting on topics related to Wolk anywhere in Wikipedia, so I think this matter is resolved. Perhaps a similar self-imposed topic ban can be agreed with the presumptive PR representative of Wolk here, User:Lawrencewarwick. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

If he hasn't already done so, he should go to the AFD page and anywhere else he's brought this up, and delete (not just strike-through) his own comments, to take himself out of that picture. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I must note that a recent group of edits by Tijfo098 on THF's talk page [16] seems to be highly provocative, especially since Tijfo098 should have been able to see that THF could not reply. I would like to believe that it was just thoughtless, not specifically indented to bait THF into continuing. I am warning him that if he continues this dispute in such a manner, I shall bock him to prevent further escalation.

And I do not think a request to get him to delete his comments is helpful either. I consider this too might have a tendency to be provocative. It is necessary to stop attacking someone if you expect them to improve their behavior. DGG ( talk ) 18:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you surely misunderstand that post of mine. I only indicated to THF that I found the answer to the question I had asked in his edit history, so a reply from him was no longer needed, and the same time I acknowledge that I understand why he chooses to no longer discuss the matter. Your attack on me, both here and on my talk page seems quite unwarranted. I had hoped my post above would be last one on this issue. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I accept your good intent, and it could have just been the unfortunate timing, but your posting would I think have been taken the wrong way by many people. I'm not attacking you or anyone here & if it looked that way, I apologize DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of any apologies or backing off that an editor might give voice to, if an editor leaves controversial statements standing, then you have to assume he still stands by them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with UncleG and DGG, above; let's just move on and leave THF be. --JN466 20:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

If this was the first time THF had caused trouble through conflicted actions perhaps that would be fine, but it's not. Some of us remember why he changed his username and the events around that time. Guy (Help!) 20:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Behaviour of admin Cirt in content disputes

Moved from WP:AN. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 17:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I have been witness to several issues with Cirt in the past and wanted to point out to administrators that Cirt is not behaving in a manner consistent with wikipedia's standards for consensus, neutral editing and good manners. Cirt created an article, Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System, an editor requested this be deleted on the basis of it being a coatrack and NPOV article against BLP (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Werner_Erhard_vs._Columbia_Broadcasting_System), Cirt proceeded to disparaging and personally attack every editor who requested deletion or disagreed with his POV, including [17], [18] and [19] ).

Cirt, against WP: Own, has sent messages to others to come to his support (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fainites&diff=prev&oldid=396172372) and has been objecting to any attempt to improve the article using every tactic possible, including now asking for a source that he actually put in the article to be declared unreliable because, due to other editors, he realizes now that it contradicts the POV pushing
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Werner_Erhard_vs._Columbia_Broadcasting_System&action=historysubmit&diff=396337035&oldid=396336473 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Werner_Erhard_vs._Columbia_Broadcasting_System&diff=prev&oldid=396341116 ). Spacefarer (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• You can add this ad-hominem in the same AfD. This referred to a warning Cirt had placed her/himself on the user's talk page, "Copyright violation and plagiarism", while in a content dispute with the user.
• The edits which Cirt described as copyright violation and plagiarism were [20] and [21].
• Note that the user's edit summary was "The purpose as stated by the originator." There was no intent to plagiarise Erhard or violate his copyright, MLKLewis (talk · contribs) wanted to quote him. MLKLewis (talk · contribs) appears to be a newbie, with less than 200 edits. As a newbie, he may have been unaware that direct quotations should be placed in quotation marks in Wikipedia, and the matter could have been dealt with simply by telling him that. However, it is clear from Cirt's revert that Cirt objected to the edit on content grounds, and then switched to admin mode to put pressure on the other editor. One month later, Cirt solicited another admin to warn MLKLewis for deleting Cirt's warnings from their user talk page. Unfortunately, there have been many, many, many similar instances in the past. --JN466 17:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I have been following this discussion in multiple forums. First, the accusation that Cirt is attacking other editors is not supported, even by the links provided by Spacefarer. It appears to be only one editor, and the statement by THF that "you are going to get both of us sued" does sound close to a legal threat, which is precisely what Cirt said. Second, Cirt has not sent messages soliciting support. He has placed messages thanking other editors for their support (including to me, in the interest of full disclosure). Not the same thing, although I suppose some might argue it encourages support; still, it's after the fact, and I see nothing wrong with people thanking each other on Wikipedia - it's kind of nice, frankly.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Response from Cirt

1. I agree with the above comment, by Bbb23 (talk · contribs), thank you.
2. Spacefarer (talk · contribs) has been blocked for socking on this topic [22].
3. Spacefarer (talk · contribs) has been warned for disruptive AFD nominations on this topic [23].
4. I am the single most prolific contributor of Featured Article quality and Good Article-rated-quality-content to this particular topic on Wikipedia.
5. This section header is inaccurate. There is no "administrative" actions by myself as an admin (blocks, deletions, etc.) that are under question by the accusations made by Spacefarer (talk · contribs).
6. I agree with Bbb23 (talk · contribs) that the accusations by Spacefarer (talk · contribs) are not supported.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I have at least two concerns here. Firstly, while it is always a good idea to ask Moonriddengirl for advice, you are an administrator and should already exactly understand the guidelines regarding editor leeway on their own talk pages. That's not something you should need to ask about. And your presentation of that talk page blanking in the AFD "recently blanked out his talk page with multiple issues relating to this topic" elides the fact that the bulk of what was removed was your warnings. That may piss you off, but again, if you want to be an admin you should be used to getting pissed off and dealing with it without fuss. Second, again, as an admin you should have a better grasp of NLT. Leaving the ominous possibility of blocking shuld be done with care, and telling THF something is "close to" a threat and not to do it again at risk of blocking doesn't meet the standard. If it's not a legal threat, you don't get blocked for it. Regardless of whether you intended to act on it personally as an admin, people can look up your status and will assume that you are the one threatening to block. So there's two things you are expected to know as an admin and you are demonstrating a shaky grasp of both. Franamax (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to not request an additional eye/advice from another admin when it comes to any topic on Wikipedia, especially one that would/could lead to an indef block. Because of the way the written word appears, a certain phrase can have multiple meanings, and having someone look at it from their perspective is never a bad thing. I would rather err on the side of caution than to be dumped on for blocking due to a "bad interpretation" of what was said. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Replaced inappropriate section heading. --JN466 00:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Franamax and BWilkins that there is no good reason not to request additional input, other than the possibility that even if the request is made there may not be any response in a reasonable time to the request. People get sick, take time off, etc, including any admins who might receive such requests for input. Perhaps placing the matter on one of the noticeboards might have been good, but some things there don't get much input either. I suppose I can fault Cirt for not doing these things, to a degree, but only to a degree. As for the implication that all admins should know each and every point of policy or guidelines at all times, yeah, that'd be nice too. As a fellow admin, who only became an admin to edit protected templates, I can myself say that there are several points of policy and guidelines I don't know very well, but that I tend not to deal with those matters so the subject doesn't come up often. I don't think that it is currently believed that every admin by definition is perfect. If it is, I can't see how the hell I was made one. There are always matters of judgement involved in some matters, particularly those that discuss what might be legal threats, and it would probably be a good idea to ask for input in such matters as a general rule, but this one did seem to come really close to the line, and individual interpretation of policy is something we have to take for granted.

Cirt probably shouldn't have done what he did in some of the above, and he should have known better. But he's human, just like the rest of us. I don't see that the particular points being raised here necessarily require more than a slap on the wrist, and a comment to the effect of asking for outside input a bit quicker in any similar situations in the future. John Carter (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It's well known that the Queen of Copyright never sleeps, and when she responds to a question six minutes later apologises for taking so long to get to it. ;) It's certainly not required for every admin to know every policy by heart, but I think there is a minimal expectation they know where the policy pages are and how to read them. But yes, asking for advice is always good. I completely agree with your last paragraph. It may be a quaint notion, but I do believe that admins should model the best behaviour and be ready to admit when they have not, and apologize for it. Franamax (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any egregious issue here. Warning someone is not the same as blocking them. If I see an editor engaged in edit warring, and I post a 3RR warning, it doesn't mean I'm planning to block them myself. The fundamental issue here is that people involved in litigation should not be editing related topics on Wikipedia.   Will Beback  talk  21:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar

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

---

Not sure this is the right place to post this, since the article is currently under discretionary sanctions imposed by Arbcom.

The Arbcom decision provides discretionary sanctions - after a warning - if an editor "repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioral standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia" on Gibraltar-related articles, and explicitly reminds editors to assume good faith. In light of this serious accusation of bad faith and the editor concerned's refusal to withdraw it in that thread (twice), I should like to ask that an uninvolved administrator give such a warning to User:Imalbornoz. Pfainuk talk 23:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

For information, I've walked away from this discussion as I saw it producing nothing productive. I'm only commenting here as Pfainuk drew this to my attention. To my mind, its a rather lame dispute that could easily have been resolved through discussion. Rather silly really, goodnight one and all. Justin talk 23:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope that Imalbornoz will respond here. The line that Pfainuk found offensive was "Have you looked at any source at all? Or is it just the usual disruptive edit warring just for the sake of it?" EdJohnston (talk) 01:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

There was also the line "I get that you prefer that Wikpedia's users get the wrong information (for I don't know what absurd reason)." Pfainuk talk 07:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Justin A Kuntz is in fact showing a very WP:disruptive behaviour after his return from his 3 months topic ban, trying to impose controversial edits (which had been under discussion for over a year and upon which a consensus had been -finally- reached during his absence: this is his first edit after his return; it had been under discussion from July 2009 until April 2010, and then a consensus was reached), edit warring[24][25][26][27][28][29], accusing other editors[30][31][32][33], going into endless discussions (see his first and second comments in the talk page after his return from the topic ban, not exactly very uncontroversial)...

Please, just take a look at the history of the article and the talk page during and after his topic ban and compare the amount of clear signs of disruptive editing: battleground type discussions, accusations, reverts... (as a reference, look here for the typical signs that the WP guideline lists:[34])

Regarding what I suppose triggered this report: I suppose that seeing Justin revert the article to a version that he obviously knew was wrong[35][36] (please see the edit summaries) has been the last straw. I try to assume good faith, but he keeps sticking to a behaviour that strikes me as not too WP:COMPETENT. That's what I've meant with the comment that EdJohnston brings from the talk page. Regarding user Pfainuk, he is a quite more reasonable editor, although I suppose that his friendship with Justin makes him see the latter in a (not too justified) positive light.

It would be nice if an admin could take a look and see whether any discretionary sanction is justified on Justin or any other editors -including myself- in order to make it less painful to keep improving Gibraltar related articles. Thank you very much. Imalbornoz (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

What Justin wanted here was for you to stop and discuss the edit. Instead, you edit warred to keep it in, accusing him of bad faith. This is despite the fact that you were adamant earlier this week that no disputed edit could possibly go into the article until it had achieved consensus. In terms of the content dispute, let me suggest the possibility that the word "Gibraltarian" might have two meanings: that it might refer both to status and to residency. I note that the original version was linked to precisely the statistic on which you base your objection. This was certainly not a case in which bad faith was the only possible assumption. And none of this should be new to you - even if you didn't think of it at the time, I pointed it out when I asked you to withdraw on talk. If you had done so, we would not be at ANI.

For the benefit of admins, I note that when Imalbornoz says "consensus was reached", what this means is that all editors who disagreed with him either were topic banned or had left following Arbcom and the period leading up to it. Justin has come back and reopened those discussions (and opened others), without significantly repeating the behaviour that Arbcom topic banned him for. Over the last week or two we've had a detailed discussion with good faith assumed on all sides, and reached a consensus on one of the issues - IOW we've done exactly what we're supposed to be doing.

During this time, there have been some ill-advised edits and some low level baiting. Imalbornoz has been fully involved in this: search for "SYN" on the talk page, and you'll see Imalbornoz repeatedly insisting that anything that was not a direct quotation from a source was original synthesis, despite multiple editors pointing out otherwise. Imalbornoz brings up Justin edit warring - well look who was on the other side of those edit wars and you'll see it was Imalbornoz. The atmosphere hasn't been perfect, but it has nonetheless been a marked improvement on what was there before Arbcom, and I didn't feel a need to bring any of it up here.

And then we had this. The sort of accusation I reference at the start of this thread is the reason we ended up at Arbcom in the first place. It was uncalled-for, unnecessary and very damaging to our potential for progress. And nothing that Justin has done could possibly justify it. Which is why I ask that Imalbornoz get a warning under the Arbcom sanction. Pfainuk talk 09:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of the case, Justin's behaviour, of systematically reverting every edit by other contributors three times in a row, without raising an actual content objection to them, simply for the sake of obstructing them, is plainly unacceptable. For an editor who has just come back from an Arbcom-imposed topic ban, this is more than a bit troublesome, and will certainly be met with further sanctions. In this situation, the line "have you looked at the source? Have you looked at any source at all? Or is it just the usual disruptive edit warring just for the sake of it?" is not a personal attack; it is a precise and amply warranted description of his behaviour. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Justin's topic ban has been over for more than three months now, so I'd certainly quibble "just come back". It's not as though he showed up immediately on the expiry of his topic ban in August and started up the same behaviour as before. He came back two months later and has not repeated that behaviour: discussion for the last month was going relatively well, particularly in the last week or two - until this message from Imalbornoz.

And do you really think that it's "amply warranted" to announce that an editor "prefer[s] that Wikpedia's users get the wrong information"? That was the accusation that I found the more inappropriate, given specific Arbcom remedies about assuming good faith. Getting consensus on those articles is already difficult and comments such as these only make it harder. Content objection? Yes, a content objection was raised on talk before these accusations were made. The original edit was uncited (see the edit summary for the first revert) and went into detail on the demographic mix of Gibraltar in the first paragraph of the lede. Pfainuk talk 09:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that I agree with Future Perfect. Since Justin returned from his ban we have been struggling with his inability to conduct a useful discussion. I did produce a rather long comment at this diff, concluding with "I do have a suggestion which I hope will allow Justin's knowledge and interest to be used constructively. If we all wish to put a suggested edits on the talk page, with references, and then to engage in clear, relevant, and specific discussion in accordance with Wikipedia's principles, this would be welcome and useful. I really hope that he does so." (The comment might have been more appropriate at Justin's talk page, but that has a notice requesting me not to comment there.) In general however I have stayed quiet and done my very best to produce alternative consensus solutions - it is pleasing to note that we have in one case succeeded, and I was really hoping that we would take this as a template for further progress.

Then we come to the current issue: Justin's reversion with the summary "(rv whilst I don't necessarily disagree, all changes apparently have to be discussed and agreed in talk first (and a cite would be nice))". He didn't disagree with the facts, which are uncontroversial and are indeed, as specified, fully referenced in another article. This is a straightforward example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and his summary relates to his inability to grasp discussion procedures, including my attempts at explanation above.

Imalbornoz then corrected the facts and supplied an authoritative reference. I breathed a sigh of relief and hoped that the matter was over. Justin returned with a reversion to information known to be wrong and the still pointier comment "(rv pls discuss in talk page, apparently there is a requirement for each and every change to be discussed in detail)". I moved the detail from the lede to an appropriate section, desperately hoping that this would be the end of it. In the hope of pacimollifying Justin, I also made a comment in a new section on the talk page. Justin reverted yet again to the known incorrect information, emphasizing pointiness with the summary "(rv pls explain why any change I propose must be subject to scrutiny but not anyone else?)". Imalbornoz then corrected the facts yet again and, at the moment, there the matter stands.

I can best summarize by repeating what I wrote in the earlier Arbcom case: "I feel there is one and only one editor whose improvement or absence is essential to enable the discussion to progress. All others, however strong their opinions, seem open to rational debate." I have just reviewed the entire current talk page; none of us is perfect, but, in my long-considered and often-reinforced opinion, Justin's incompetence at discussion, energy, sense of grievance, and inability to peep outside his own fixed position disqualify him from constructive editing in any area where serious underlying disagreements of principle make consensus difficult. Gibraltar has a notoriously intractable international dispute, and I do not believe that he is able to contribute constructively to the relevant articles. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Or it is a case of BRD. Why you saw a revert and thought the best move was to revert makes me question why you persist in stirring up tensions while giving the impression you are some how some neutral mediator. You are about as neutral as FoxNews and worse at hiding it. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello FPAS, long time no see. I would have been more comfortable with your comments if perhaps you'd thought to mention that we were in dispute some time ago over the deletion of Fair Use images and that in the deletion review that overturned your deletions you were rather bad tempered, indulged in personal attacks directed toward myself and ultimately it lead to an RFC/U on your behaviour. In answer to your comment, I did in fact discuss the matter on the talk page pointing out that the wikilink that was erased actually discusses demographics and makes a distinction between native born and resident Gibraltarians.

I note that the editor Richard Keatinge had in fact noted that there was some merit in my reversions, noting the lede fixation and introducing details that really were not appropriate for the lede. I suppored him in that comment. I also made it plain that I had no intention whatsoever of edit warring but wished to have a mature and level headed discussion. Really the dispute was rather WP:LAME and when it resulted in further personal attacks, well I thought it best to simply walk away and go to bed on it.

I am glad that Richard Keatinge has drawn attention to his 2000 word essay entitled incompetence, which is nothing but a personal attack from beginning to end. In that personal attack he assets that I do not make my edit proposals clear. For example I proposed a change to the lede qualiifying the devolved powers of Gibraltar Government see [37], if perhaps someone could make a suggestion as to how I can make a proposal plainer, then I would be interested to hear it. Richard claims this is unclear and sought comment on a completely different proposal asserting it as the edit I proposed to make. The two editors following him, however, immediatly understood exactly what I meant.

I find it interesting to also contrast Richard's pre-occupation with my behaviour, with his habit ignoring of Imalbornoz's disruptive behaviour. He has set himself up as a "neutral arbiter" but in fact is far from it. Imalbornoz has seriously misrepresented sources in support of edits and in manner which stretches good faith to its absolute limits. Imalbornoz's behaviour in filibustering talk page discussions goes without comment, his personal attacks go without comment. And Richard himself indulges in personal attacks such as his comments here.

I note that I have not been disruptive, I haven't edit warred, I have discussed content in good faith and as far as possible focused on content rather than editors. Pfainuk posted here in good faith a request to have admin oversight on bad conduct by Imalbornoz, it is immediately deflected into an attack on another editor.

He alleges that I'm not prepared to listen and be open to debate. Well it is perhaps best to illustrate that is untrue by way of an example. See WP:NPOVN#Ceuta, Melilla and Gibraltar where I withdrew my edit proposal following outside feedback. It is nonetheless illustrative that whilst I posted a neutral question seeking outside opinion, Imalbornoz immediately posted to influence discussion and Richard followed this up by stating that we didn't need outside opinion.

I have never shrank from the fact that earlier this year my behaviour was not up to wikipedian standards. I apologised unreservedly for my conduct. I have made an extra effort to avoid a repeat of such behaviour, including seeking feedback from User:Atama to ensure there was not a repeat of my previous conduct.

Imalbnornoz and Richard Keatinge seem unwilling to let go of the past and acknowledge their own disruptive behaviour, simply because they were not sanctioned by arbcom. Their defence here is to adopt a previous practise of discouraging discussion with walls of text and when their own conduct is examined to adopt the Unclean hands defence spraying around accusations to deflect attention from their own disruptive behaviour. Their behaviour is showing severe signs of WP:OWN on the article, whereby the content they impose is the "consensus". I consider that they are also indulging in WP:BAIT to elicit an intemperate response. I have received a lot of abuse from both and I haven't bitten. Personally as I have repeatedly stated I would like to focus on content, instead I find myself repeatedly defending myself against personal attacks and any proposal I make requires interminable amounts of talk page discussion to move forward. Even when I propose content that is well written, reliably sourced, relevant and giving due coverage it is reverted out of turn. And in truth the stated objections are not rooted in grounds relevant to wikipedia, rather is seems it depends on who the editor is. Justin talk 12:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

ADD: On reflection bringing up the prior dispute with FPAS was uncalled for and unnecessary. Although we had a heated debate, FPAS has never demonstrated any lasting resentment over that incident and has always been civil toward me. I apologise unreservedly for doing so and have redacted my comments. Justin talk 16:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course that I am ready to strike through any personal attack I've made. On the other hand, I don't believe my comments were personal attacks. IMO, they just were relevant questions brought up by the fact that:

1. Justin had just reverted an uncontroversial correction (the number of Gibraltarians living in Gibraltar is not controversial, as far as I know)
2. that the correction was sourced (a statistical publication by the Government of Gibraltar itself where it "literally" says that there are 23,907 Gibraltarians in page 2, whereas the article said that there were 30,000 Gibraltarians)
3. that -therefore- there was nothing positive to come out from the reversion, and Justin himself has recognised that he wasn't against the edit and that the dispute was LAME
4. that the only possible outcome of this reversion was to offer erroneous information to WP users
5. that Justin had reverted this not once but THREE TIMES in a row to corrections from THREE DIFFERENT EDITORS
6. that Justin DOES in fact edit war very usually (before and after his topic ban)

To me, this looks as if Justin was edit warring as he usually does; and I could not find any explanation to this edit war except, maybe, that he was trying to make a WP:POINT. All of this, obviously, looked very disruptive. Therefore, I made my questions (more descriptive -in my opinion- than offensive) trying to make him either realise what he was doing and/or give an explanation. One admin who has witnessed Justin's activity some time ago seems to that this was probably more descriptive than offensive.

I insist: of course, I am ready to strike through and apologise for anything that is a personal attack.

Please, I also ask admins to please take a look at the situation and please apply discretionary sanctions in order to avoid the waste of time (and hundreds of Kb of text) in the Gibraltar talk page whenever Justin is not topic banned. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 12:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

One of the things that was brought to my attention during the arbcom case was there was never any circumstances under which being uncivil was tolerated on wikipedia. The fact that I was frustrated with the endless and interminable discussions was not one of them. Imalbornoz's incivility on this occasion was completely unwarranted and now the fact that I avoided interacting with him whilst he was being uncivil is being used to further his personal attack.

I did not edit war, if you in fact read the history of Gibraltar in recent weeks the only person to indulge in edit warring was Imalbornoz see [38], [39], [40], [41], [42].

If he had chosen to take the discussion to the talk page, I would have pointed out to him that Gibraltarian can refer to both residents and native born or naturalised. The wikilink he has removed from the article explained this should someone wish to know more but now that link is no more since Imalbornoz edit warred it out of the article. See [43] where I explained that the wikilink made the obsessive expression of pedantic detail in the lede completely unnecessary. Having explained that, Imalbornoz did not even bother to consider my comment but rather launched into two completely unnecessary personal attacks here [44] and here [45] both occurring after I had added an explanation and the latter following an amplification of it [46]. After being urged to remove his uncivil remarks he responds with further personal attacks [47].

WP:CIVIL#No personal attacks or harassment is a core part of the civility policy. It reminds editors that constantly referring to past behaviour is uncivil in itself. Both Imalbornoz and Richard Keatinge are constantly referring to the arbcom case - I have not at any point repeated the behaviour that lead to me being sanctioned by arbcom, despite the provocation of constantly referring to the past. The issue here is Imalbornoz was seriously uncivil on Talk:Gibraltar, he has compounded that being continuing to be uncivil by deflecting attention from himself by raking up the past and to my mind the non-apology above is simply rubbing salt into the wound.

He refers to the hundreds of kb in text in Talk:Gibraltar well coming from an editor where 95% of his contributions are in Talk:Gibraltar and who along with Richard Keatinge deters outside opinion with huge walls of text that accusation seems a bit rich to me. My content suggestions have merit, they're well written, reliable sourced, conform to NPOV and DUE and they're being rejected out of hand by two editors who seem to think they WP:OWN the article to an alarming degree. It is not a healthy situation and I for one would welcome some admin intervention.

I have never in my time on wikipedia sought that sanctions be imposed on anyone. In fact I've usually gone out of my way to avoid it. However, I think the time has come to issue a warning under the discretionary sanctions to Imalbornoz. He is being seriously uncivil. I also consider that Richard Keatinge merits a similar warning as he is constantly bringing up the arbcom case and re-inforcing uncivil behaviour by joining in with the personal attacks. Both are displaying precisely the same lack of good faith that resulted in the arbcom case but just because they weren't sanctioned they think they have clean hands. They do not, the discretionary sanctions were applied to all those involved. Justin talk 14:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to note concern over phrases like 'and I have to warn you that it can get you banned again.'. No. Imalbornoz doesn't have to warn him nor is it appropriate - It is an attempt to bully, to coerce a response deemed favourable to the poster. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I'd add that we appear to be seeing the old "walls of text" tactic here. If enough long messages are posted, that should dissuade enough people from reading them to ensure that nothing happens.

The simple question for admins is this. Does the Arbcom ruling apply to Imalbornoz? If so, admins must be prepared to warn him when he so egregiously breaks Wikipedia behavioural policy. If they are not, it is difficult to see any particular reason why he - and indeed other editors - will not disrupt progress on this article through continued bad behaviour. Pfainuk talk 19:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI. I have added the page to my watchlist, have read this entire discussion and the terms of the findings at the case page. At this moment there have been no significant edits in over 24 hours. Of course the findings apply to all. Keep your heads and get back to the talk page. I am around as needed. JodyB _talk 19:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Rodhullandemu admin account

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

---

Incident

Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) stated on my talk page that another person in his house may have accessed his admin account.

His contribs in the same editing period indicate concern that either 1) his admin account is not secure, 2) he edits under the influence (including use of tools), or 3) he made the post himself. The edit summary, to an IP on 4 November at 01:38, of the post in question (and there are others similar) is:

• "rfor fuck's sakle shut up and let me reply!!!Q wanker!!!".

Background

1. On 20 October Rodhullandemu closed an ANI discussion with "Wankers".

   Rod's response

2. On 31 October, in a different incident, Nuclear Warfare warned Rodhullandemu that if his behavior continued, he would be seeking a lengthy block. (NW indicated that was the second warning: I am unaware of the first.)

   Found. On 29 October, Rod told MF to STFU. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

3. Today, Rodhullandemu began poking Malleus Fatuorum again, casting aspersions upon MF and his article editing (see WP:WBFAN for evidence of MF's editing), and after being asked to back off,
   1. continued the discussion on my talk, where he claimed his admin account was used by another person.
   2. He continued on Malleus's and my talk even after I told him he might want to stop digging and take the night off.

Rodhullandemu's contribs during the editing time frame on 4 November show

1. he used the tools to block an IP at 00:22 (I don't know how to supply that diff), (I did it Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 06:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC))
2. the "fuck's sake shut up" "wanker" post to an IP was at 01:38, and
3. he posted to Jimbo's talk page at 01:59.

A review of his other contribs in that time frame reveals other problems, and a continuous editing session until 02:11 UTC.

Disengage from Malleus

Independently of whether Rodhullandemu's admin account is secure or he edits under the influence and what is to be done about that, I request that the community consider that he should be asked to refrain from any engagement with Malleus Fatuorum, either at ANI or on user talk.

I will do notifications next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu's reply

at 18:16, November 13, 2010 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• His explanation for the drunken edit makes no sense. He challenges you to attribute it to him? Does he mean beyond the fact that it's his account that made the edit? Also, someone connecting to your WiFi wouldn't give them access to your account. They have to be on the same browser and PC. Something is rotten here, and it isn't my socks. --Andy Walsh (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "someone connecting to your wifi" > try Firesheep. Works. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • What I'm more concerned with is the admin logs. Surprisingly, he hasn't made any incorrect actions during the compromisation. Minimac (talk) 06:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Firesheep is irrelevant: see Wikipedia:ADMIN#Take care and Wikipedia:Security. Compromise of the tools is serious business (but then, so is his continual poking at Malleus). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree, highly suspicious here. Rodhullandemu's general conduct would probably be better suited to WP:RFC/U (of which one is long overdue, imo, but let's not digress); in this case the apparent compromisation of an admin account should lead to (a) an emergency desysopping if he hasn't regained access; or (b) a strongly-worded admonishment about ensuring the safety of his admin account if he has. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 07:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Per Andy above, wifi doesn't give people access to his account; further, the edit itself was obviously that of someone at least familiar with Wikipedia, if not of the temperament and personality Rod has displayed on-wiki in the past. I am fairly certain that these circumstances do not allow for the account to have been compromised. The diffs above all seem characteristic of one experienced person who's simply taken DGAF too far. sonia♫ 07:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
• Reserving judgment until Rod responds, but the assertion that an edit might have been inserted into his unsecured wi-fi is not particularly credible, speaking in my personal experience as a computer security practitioner. Jclemens (talk) 07:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Speaking as a fellow computer security practitioner, since the inception of Firesheep a few weeks ago the ability to access another editors account on an unsecured wi-fi has become a rather trivial matter possible. For admins reading it seems relevant to quote the advice of Dcoetzee, "You should always use the secure server when editing from a network that is not under your control like a public wifi network, especially if you're an admin or other privileged account". Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 11:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
• It's 8am where he is - give him a chance to respond here. Personally, while he can be abrasive, I know he has a lot of personal stuff going on, too, so please - go easy on the guy - Alison ^❤ 08:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

10.20 now, but I expect he may be sleeping in late this morning! Johnbod (talk) 10:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Alison. That has been my sense, even without knowing the situation, which is another reason I asked him to stop engaging Malleus and think it might be best for all if he do so. He doesn't seem able to relate to Malleus without a good amount of unproductive needling (claiming Malleus isn't here to build the encyclopedia stretches credibility). UncleG's post below is so full of silliness that I won't take the time to reply. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• One only has to look up ⇑ at the "dishonest arse" and suchlike to see the real origin of today's outbreak of silliness. Malleus Fatuorum was silly. Rodhullandemu was silly. The idea that one can hijack a Wikipedia account via WiFi hijacking is … well … not quite silly but not very well founded technically; but it was a silly way to make the real point that Rodhullandemu was obviously trying to make, namely that the two incidents had no connection with each other. The assumption that Rodhullandemu's administrator account is evidently compromised is silly, given the content in that edit. I'm amazed that anyone, even the people who are not computer security practitioners, gives it serious credence. (Am I the only person to have read beyond the edit summary?) It's quite clearly a rather angry way of saying "Gah! Edit conflict NUMBER THREE!", two of which 1 2 were apparently with SineBot notice, so this wasn't aimed just at the editor without an account. And SandyGeorgia is being silly in escalating this; if the object is to stop people looking at Malleus Fatuorum, and to not draw attention to the double standard of ignoring a friend calling others "dishonest arse" and chastising an opponent for "wanker" as an expression of exasperation at multiple edit conflicts and at a discussion of a perennial topic that once again achieves no rise in standards of personal behaviour; and to not be asked why xe thinks "In a word [STFU]" (in the self-same discussion as Rodhullandemu's edit above) is setting a good example on xyr own part.

  A lot less of the silliness all around, please. Let's have the FA writers and the people involved with them being a little less of little clique all telling one another and other people to "STFU" and "fuck off" for years on end. Remember Linas. The "best of Wikipedia" should be accompanied by the best of Wikipedia behaviour. Toxicity has bred toxicity for years, here. It's time for you all to stop. Uncle G (talk) 08:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Having checked the diffs here, I think Uncle G has it exactly right. Jonathunder (talk) 11:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• I don't believe a word that comes from Rod's mouth, particularly his explanation that his account was somehow compromised. Any other editor would, regardless of blame, apologise for such a mistake, but Rod's conduct is unbecoming of an administrator. Face it, if he were at WP:RFA now he wouldn't stand a chance. His posts are often abusive, overbearing, egotistical and plain unhelpful. I don't think he should be an administrator here. Parrot of Doom 09:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
• The menacing tone of [48] edits like this, from an admin who was posting on someone's talk page for no actual reason, is completely unacceptable. Does anyone believe that anything useful or constructive will ever result from Rod posting on Malleus' talk page again, given the considerable history here? There are 24 posts by him there in the last 4 months. As a minimum he should be prevented from posting there in future. Johnbod (talk) 09:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
• If Rodhullandemu has stated that his admin account has been compromised, then it shoud be treated as such. Therefore, a temporary emergency desysopping would seem to be in order until such time as it can be demonstrated that he has control of the account again. Mjroots (talk) 11:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • He has stated no such thing. He claimed (unconvincingly) that someone else had used in the past hijacked his wifi connection. He also said he is no longer editing over wifi, or something to the same effect. With an improper application of the "I think you are lying, but I will assume you are not and give you a lesson based on your false claims" technique you can easily shoot yourself in your own foot. Hans Adler 11:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Just noting, for the record, the trend: an editor who raises serious questions about an admin's use of tools is either called "petty" or "silly". So ... that's why admin misuse and abuse rarely gets taken to RFC/U or ANI, which should answer some of the questions raised by Jimbo on his talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

  I don't think there has been any misuse of the tools has there? Off2riorob (talk) 12:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

  I was referring to a different case with "petty" (where there was misuse of admin tools)-- "silly" is this case. I don't know if there has been misuse in this case: I haven't examined his log. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

  Ah, I see, Uncle G, six sillies and two sillinesses in one comment, not bad going. Seems like this is more about inter-relating, Rod gets a bit involved sometimes but means well as the vast majority of users do, old enemies are the worst, perhaps we should have a make friends with your worst wiki enemy day and all try to accept each others frailties and get on a bit better. Only three or four admin actions in his log for this period, a couple of blocks and a couple of protections, usual vandal fighting stuff. Off2riorob (talk) 12:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

  Admin breaks are a good idea, when the community thinks an admin is getting a bit lost or carried away, get a consensus to ask them to take a one month break from the tools. All Admins should take tool breaks and edit as an ordinary editor or they lose touch with what it is like to be an ordinary editor. I support two obligatory one month tool breaks per year per admin. Off2riorob (talk) 12:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

  I think SandyGeorge has a good idea and I concur. Let the two step away from each other. Hopefully that will prevent a problem from getting bigger. JodyB _talk 13:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

  I don't recall starting this, just as I don't recall going to Rod's talk page and making semi-coherent threats. It's really quite unedifying to see how frequently administrators make excuses for each others' poor behaviour. Malleus Fatuorum 16:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I commend the idea of voluntary desysopping for when wiki/rl stresses are affecting your judgement. Giving up my tools for a couple of months at the start of the year was the best decision I ever took. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Might an RFC be worth considering? It just might help put him on the right track; if not, it may still be needed as preliminary DR before this ends up at AC (which I hope it will not need to). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with SandyGeorgia that Uncle G's attempt to sweep things under the carpet was not helpful. This time around Rodhullandemu has given barely credible excuses for poor behaviour and has in addition gone awol, having been up most of the night, 20 minutes before this report was made. I realise that his real life conditions are severe. Nevertheless he should take a little more responsibility for his own actions, particularly if he envisages keeping his mop. Mathsci (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC) A secondary concern at the moment is that his irregular sleeping patterns might prevent him from witnessing a Great British public figure who must surely be one of his role models.[49]
  • His sleep patterns look pretty regular to me? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I see no point in speculating about his being awol or not; give him a little time to respond. If Uncle G's synopsis is correct, it is still an issue of great concern; he is not behaving as we expect admins to behave. "Silly" is not "STFU" etc. and calling it so does not diminish the concerns raised by this behavior. If I behave poorly, I cannot then pass it off as highjinks; I must accept responsibility for my actions. If he has been careless enough for another to gain access, he needs to rectify that; if this is he himself acting, he needs to rectify that. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Asking for less silliness all around is not sweeping things under the carpet. It's asking for what I suspect the majority of people want at this point. And that includes the silliness in that comment that you just made. Less of that silliness as well, please. In a complaint about Rodhullandemu "poking", here are you doing it — just as SandyGeorgia complaining about people telling others to "STFU" was doing that xyrself at the same time, in the same thread, on the same page, the same day. As I said: Silliness all around. We, the rest of us, want less of it from all of you — SandyGeorgia, Malleus Fatuorum, Rodhullandemu, you, and the rest. You've been at each other and anyone passing by like this, toxicity breeding toxicity and generating one of the most vile atmospheres in the project (compared with which even newbies at Articles for deletion coming to User talk:Ron Ritzman are paragons of sweetness and light) for years.

    It's time for all of you to stop it. This environment where for years you've all been telling one another to "fuck off", "STFU", and throw words like "shit", "fuck", and "arse" at all sorts of other editors, and feel an entitlement to do so, should stop if you want to actually resolve things here, because it's your basic problem that's causing almost all of the rest, just as this particular bout of all-round silliness started with the "dishonest arse" namecalling. The editors who are so proud of making the best of Wikipedia articles should start exhibiting the best of Wikipedia behaviour toward other people.

    I pointed it out in the case of Linas and I point it out here. One of the things that the whole we-can-abuse-everyone-else-with-bad-language-and-personal-insults-we're-content-writers subset overlooks in this whole silliness is that if any of you were content writers over at Citizendium, far from having a safe expert-friendly environment where you could just write articles in peace, you'd all have been thrown out on your ears, no ifs no buts no maybes, long since, at the first swear word, which was several years ago in several of your cases. Yours is the very expert-unfriendly behaviour that the experts-who-want-a-quiet-life do not want around. You want the content-writer-friendliness? You improve your behaviours out here in public to match the standards required for it. Just as those (quite a few) of us who are also content writers (and indeed experts), and yet who do not suffer the they-don't-respect-me-because-I'm-a-content-writer problems, have done all along.

    Uncle G (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

    • Your efforts to shift attention away from your admin colleague are very transparent and do you no credit. Malleus Fatuorum 17:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
      • You know, considering the admins are effectively on your side here, you could be a bit less of a dick than you usually are. Next you'll yell at that nice fireman for getting water all over you when you were on fire. HalfShadow 18:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Could someone please clarify where I ever told anyone to STFU? It has been said to me, but I can't recall returning the favor. In fact, there are quite a few things wrong in your summary, but I'll leave it at that for now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Haven't read this whole thing, but I will just say there is no excuse for calling other editors wankers, and Rod's refusal to take responsibility for his actions and simply apologise and take care to not repeat these attacks is contrary to what we expect from our administrators. I'll also note I warned Rod about this recently, see here (Rod blanked this thread per WP:BLANKING). I didn't think any action further than a clear warning was necessary at that time (such action would have seemed like punishment to me, since he wasn't actively attacking others at that point). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
• I just found this: At a recent ANI thread where we were discussing suicide reporting, Rod posted this: Likewise, I shall shortly be gone from here, for one reason or another. I'd prefer it if the fuss was minimised. Rodhullandemu 00:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC). Completely immature. Access Denied – talk to me 17:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "Wikipedia is not therapy." If he's seriously contemplating suicide, he should go see someone about it and not try to lay any guilt or co-dependency or whatever on wikipedia editors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

    That wasn't a suicide threat, more a honest reflection of Rod's reality. Off2riorob (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

    Meaning what? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, my account is not compromised as far as I know. I have little or no recollection of recent events. I have a number to call in times of crisis and am waiting for them to call back, although it is the weekend. Wherever I am, I will be considering my position. Thanks to those who have supported me. Rodhullandemu 18:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • If my crisis center put me on hold, I think I would look for another crisis center. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "Hello, this is the Admin 'Eh We'll Get Back to You Later' Crisis Center; what issue or problem to you eventually want us to address?" HalfShadow 18:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

has nobody above thought that discussing another editors personal problems here -- however well known they may be to the parties doing the discussion -- is very highly inappropriate? DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Since the one problem seems to be connected with the other, it's hard to avoid. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Just to remind everyone .. Rod's account is not compromised and he has not made any controversial administrative actions, as such no action is required, if someone wants to open a RFC user then that is their privilege but I don't see anything worthy of Admin action here and suggest under the situation the thread would be better off closed and allow a little time for things to settle down a bit. Off2riorob (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • If the guy is truly having blackout periods, how can he be trusted to be an admin, just because nothing bad happened this time? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I think the blackout is a little tongue in cheek, from a contributor feeling a bit under attack. Off2riorob (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Then maybe he needs to come here and tell us what parts of what he's saying are true, and what parts are just kidding. I don't know the guy, so I have to take him at his word at this point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
• I'd have to say that I essentially agree with Uncle G on this. A major problem at Wikipedia is the sense of entitlement of long-time editors about their level of discourse. At times, when I read threads like this, it's like things are turned on their ear; people seem to feel that WP:UNCENSORED trumps WP:NPA; that is as long as I swear when I attack someone, I can claim, when I am warned or blocked, that it is my right to swear. As long as I swear I can claim that the person who warns or blocks me is doing so because of my use of the swear words, and it allows me to redirect attention away from my antisocial behavior, because I can claim that the block admin blocked me because of "naughty words" and not because my behavior is driving away good editors and making Wikipedia an unfriendly place to work. If you want to avoid getting blocked forever, swear at an admin. Then all you have to do when blocked for that is claim that the other admins are ganging up on you to protect their little club. It's growing tiring. I, like Uncle G, want to avoid assigning blame to anyone here, because that isn't productive. I would, however, like to ask for a general improvement in the level of discourse. This is, ostensibly, an academic and educational venture, and those that participate should do with a sense of enlightened decorum that does not cast a negative light on the entire project. --Jayron32 20:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Um, as far as I can tell, Uncle G did assign blame, and since you're agreeing, I'm still waiting to hear where I've told anyone to STFU. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
• You have to laugh. Here we have an administrator calling other editors wankers, but that's apparently consistent with Jayron's "academic and educational venture", so that's OK. It's only not OK when a non-admin does that. Malleus Fatuorum 20:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Its totally true, no one should be calling anyone a wanker, but when said to an IP with five edits who has repeatedly inserted to a BLP that the subject was called a shyster is at least, not the wikicrime of the century worthy of all this. Off2riorob (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• That wasn't what started this episode, just an example of the problem. Interesting that you believe it's OK for an administrator to call some editors wankers though, but hard to reconcile that position with Jayron's "academic and educational venture". Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• No its as I said, not ok to be calling anyone a wanker. I don't really know what is happening with Rod but I don't think we need to do anything to protect the wikipedia right now, he seems to have gone off to sort himself out and when he comes back we can see how he is and go from there. David Haye v Audley Harrison is about to get scrapping, I wouldn't call either of them a wanker. Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• (85,000 ecs) I'm troubled that you view it that way, Off2riorob. The IP did have only five edits, and was inserting what she or he might have thought was a correctly sourced edit. When the IP tried to insert the material,[50] and then tried to discuss it with Rod, it was cursed at both times. Is that how admins treat IPs who don't yet likely know or understand Wiki policies? More concerning to me is that Rod has the lead edit count on that article, so even though this is not use of admin tools, it's how he interacts with an IP who is possibly still learning the ropes, and thought those edits were fine. A regular editor would be blocked for this. We have several editors here tossing about claims about who's to blame for the declining level of discourse on Wiki, at the same time that we have an admin using this kind of language to an IP who might not be aware of BLP policy or what a correct source is for one, and has only five edits. Admins are expected to have a certain level of conduct, precisely because other editors may be guided by their conduct and they are expected to enforce conduct. Yet we see precisely the opposite so often right here at ANI. I get as frustrated as the next person by edit conflicts, but Rod was cursing at this IP well before the IP came to Rod's talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• I do see issues, what you can do if you think its needed is, there are about six editors here that see a big issue worthy of action and if six users in good standing request recall on his talkpage or here then that could be a route to take. Or perhaps there is consensus here to request he take a months break from using the tools. Off2riorob (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• I am quite troubled by the level of discourse on this very page (nothing new, ANI is not equipped to deal with this, and the lack of respect from the peanut gallery certainly isn't helping); I continue to suggest a situation like this is better dealt with by the arbs, with some discretion, and away from the disgusting level of discourse that is typical of ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
• My experiences with recall pledges is that they're not worth the bytes in the database to store them. Malleus Fatuorum 22:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Personally I don't think it matters if the admin has pledged or not, if an incident arises and half a dozen good faith users ask for recall and there are not a balance of supporters the admin can't resist it and recently I have seen comments from Jimbo and arbcom that desop discussions should be an easier option and that arbcom would be open to taking them on. Off2riorob (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• But do you really think an RFC/U or recall is the best course of action for an editor who is, by accounts here, experiencing some level of personal difficulty? One thing is to get him to lay off of Malleus, but the bigger picture appears to be more serious. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I personally would support if there was consensus asking him to take a month away from the tools. This may well benefit any personal difficulty he may be experiencing, and remind him it is not OK to call users perhaps editing in good faith, wankers, but I don't support desoppping. I also think Malleus is more than capable of taking care of himself and he doesn't need or request an interaction order.Off2riorob (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think you're onto it. If there is general agreement that he has generally been a good admin but who's gotten into a "losing streak", then time off seems to make more sense than de-sysoping. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• OK. I hope Rod has some Wikifriends who are working on this, because other than figuring out how to keep him from poking Malleus, the concern about the compromised account has been answered, and I hope ANI doesn't continue to be a vehicle for some of the disrepect and lack of compassion shown below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Immediate block needed, if compromised

If the account is compromised, there has to be an immediate block on it. Then the real person can come back to Wikipedia, explain what happened and get on a fast track to re-admin by just editing like he did before. After getting a featured article in place on an article with a similar subject matter as he previously wrote, then he can be fast tracked back to adminship. பின்லாந்துF (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• What does writing a featured article have to do with being fast tracked to adminship? Protonk (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Administrators often get the tools after they can show they have made thousands of edits and did a FA. Since there was a question of the account being compromised, the person could re-establish identity. Since we don't have identity cards, a FA is a way to show ability. Most admins have or should have the ability to write a FA. பின்லாந்துF (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

That's like taking a good car salesman and making him a mechanic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a totally different skillset and set of interests. I've never written an FA and many admins have never written FAs, despite having written dozens or hundreds of articles. Protonk (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

He or she now says the account is not compromised. If so, there has been a psychiatric breakdown and this administrator's tools should be placed on medical leave for a month. A month without tools never hurt anyone. It could be shortened if there is an explanation, like he/she forgot to take his Prozac but is now taking it. பின்லாந்துF (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• I would agree. This is a strange case and if someone is having blackout periods they had best not drive or use admin tools. There are any number of us who would be willing to borrow his admin rights for a month, just to help out. I, for one, don't take impairing substances and don't have blackout periods, though I do sleep occasionally. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Baseball Bugs, RFA is thattaway >>>>>>> Mjroots (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Nah, I tried it once. Didn't like it. But I do get amused when admin's go off into the wild blue yonder and do stuff I wouldn't even think of doing, and then I wonder how they got elected and I didn't. But all's swell. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • But do you enjoy the existence of the opposite sex? If so, you might want to look Up ⇑ and give a third opinion at Talk:House rabbit in the content dispute about whether all rabbits are "he". You won't need administrator tools; only the ability to give a sensible opinion in a content dispute. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm already on that one. The original author created that POV-fork almost 3 years ago, and now he's edit-warring over the "he/she" vs. "it" situation while others try to weed out the OR and see what's left, if anything. You've heard of editors with "pet" articles? In that case, it's literal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I suspected that you wouldn't be able to resist. You're in the company of Vampire rabbit (talk · contribs), Nellythumper (talk · contribs), SouthernMNrabbitrescue (talk · contribs), Kitschbunni (talk · contribs), BinkyBunny (talk · contribs), Margobun (talk · contribs), and — my goodness! — Leporidae (talk · contribs). Uncle G (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Great. I'll be interested in what they have to say. I'm all ears. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Some of this conversation is seriously disrespectful. Someone like Raul (on a recent RFA) needs to step in and starting putting some people in their place. (Uncle, Bugs, HalfShadow, and Mjroots, I'm looking at you.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Is the admin's behavior under scrutiny, or isn't it? I don't know the guy, I don't recall having any particular interaction with him. But I'm alarmed at what I'm seeing here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

If you're truly alarmed, you could express that with a bit of respect for the person we're discussing. Starting now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

What I'm alarmed by is the apparent malfeasance of the admin. His personal problems should not even be a part of any discussion here - but he has made them so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Move for an interaction ban

I will say first that I hold Rod in very high esteem. Let's not forget the good he does, most of it behind the scenes. Like any other admin, the only time the community hears of what he does is when he fucks up (and, yes, even admins, including myself, fuck up on occasion). That said, I move for a community-imposed interaction ban between Rod and Malleus (as suggested above by Sandy Georgia) because this is not the first time the two of them have come to the wiki-equivalent of blows and, whoever started what, I don't think either has ever had anything constructive to say to the other. This seems to me to be best for both parties (I don't think either especially wants the other to talk to them) and for the Wikipedia community as a whole. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

If an admin is being seriously considered for an interaction ban, something is seriously wrong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to try taking off those blinkers. I have been avoiding Rodhullendemu for some time now; it was he who came to my talk page yesterday to issue some semi-coherent threat without any provocation whatsoever, which he now claims to have no recollection of. Yet you want to impose a sanction on me? Get real! Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

If what you say is true, the admin in question needs to take a long vacation effective immediately. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The last post by MF to Rod's talkpage was two weeks ago. Unless there is an indication that MF has been pursuing Rod elsewhere, then I think we should take him at his word. Skomorokh 19:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't doubt that Rod is the aggressor here and I didn't mean to imply that Malleus was at fault, merely that a one-way interaction ban seems pointless to me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I find that rather revealing. I have been avoiding Rodhullandemu and will continue to avoid him, interaction ban or no. It is he who has not been avoiding me. Obviously you don't believe me though, so as the non-admin in this incident I must spend some time on the naughty step, even though I have done nothing wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I do think that Rod should have an interaction ban with Malleus, but considering how this thread has evolved, I don't think an RFC/U is the most helpful next step, and suggest this should proceed to the arbs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the ARBCOM will take this issue on, nothing has actually happened. Off2riorob (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. They have taken action with other sysops when "nothing ha[d] actually happened" yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, I have seen them step in .. is this an emergency threat to the integrity of the project? Off2riorob (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Other case wasn't either: we have an admin using tools in the same editing session where he himself characterizes one of his other posts as "not a rational edit". And, yes, I do think his actions wrt Malleus compromise Malleus's time and ability to work on top content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Well surely it's worth exhausting all other realistic possibilities, first? The interaction ban would be enforceable by block, so iff Rod violates it, he may well end up blocked for a substantial amount of time and if he doesn't, there's no need for any action, so ArbCom seems a little premature (though not disproportionate). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Getting him to stop poking Malleus would help part of the situation, but what about IPs he tells to shut up for fuck's sake and calls wankers? SandyGeorgia (Talk)

• Support for a period of time, maybe three months. It should be broadly construed to include comments to one another and about one another anywhere except at certain forums like ARB or ANI. JodyB _talk 19:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Except at ANI? That's where several of the diffs originate. Would you mind removing the subhead? This is not a vote-- that would be RFA-- it's a discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem although RFA is not the only place !votes are cast. You are correct but we are talking about a ban and those parameters can be considered. I think this is the current hotspot but apparently not the only one. We just need to move this along.JodyB _talk 20:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Just as a matter of interest JodyB, what sanctions are you proposing should be applied in case one of us breaches the terms of this interaction ban? Would they be applied equally to the admin (Rodhullandemu) and the non-admin (me)? I somewhat doubt it. Malleus Fatuorum 20:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The particulars can be determined by the community but I would only support it if they were applied equally. JodyB _talk 20:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Because? Again, this is not RFA, some sort of rationale would be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, I know this is not an RFA and I think you know that too. I agree with HJMitchell above. I think these sorts of disagreements are time wasting drama fests but must still be dealt with. Now if you oppose the ban, please say so. If you have changed your mind from your comments above please clarify. When associations between two users become so spoiled that the broader community must step in there is a problem. And, as you have noted, it is not the first time. It would be nice if people could just walk away from each other but that doesn't seem to have happened. This is all I intend to say until some decision is reached on wheather a ban is a good idea. JodyB _talk 22:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to be following the sitution you're opining on: Rod has consistently and aggressively come after Malleus, to the point that NW called for a lengthy block because Rod invoked Malleus in conversations when MF wasn't involved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I find it very curious that you want to impose sanctions on me when I have done nothing wrong. Why not try dealing with the problem, Rodhullandemu? Malleus Fatuorum 21:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Support Obviously it is better for the project, and him, that RH&E is interaction banned from MF - and that the ban of MF from interacting with RH&E is simply an extension of the primary restriction, and not a comment upon MF's rather individual approach to syop intercourse. If by such a restriction the effect on RH&E's general contributions is also improved, so much the better. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no approach at all to "syop [sic] intercourse", and I don't recall ever having had intercourse with a sysop, nor any desire to. Your suggestion that I should be banned from doing something I am not doing just strikes me as bizarre. Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I might have worded it to strongly in that you should be banned from interacting with RH&E, since I should not like to set that precedent (see how many admins you do not have any "approach to" to would like to sign up for that!), but that there is a commiserate non interaction undertaking from you re RH&E. The community formally bans RH&E, on the understanding that you will do likewise. I would also like to point out that I am considered quite desirable by many persons, some of whom are aware that I am an admin - you seem to be the one with the bizarre tastes... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Additional inappropiate edit summary:

• So fucking what? WHo cares wa#hat a Tory journalists' opinioni is?

On an article where Rod is the leading editor by editcount. This is the same IP who was later attempting discussion on Rod's talk when it was cursed at, so I don't think Uncle G's conclusion that Rod was cursing at SineBot is founded (and even if he were, how would the IP know that?) If Rod were a regular editor, he would be blocked for these edits. If anything, it seems he is showing extreme stress from too much time on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• I actually said that it was an angry edit summary, at the top of this discussion. What I said that it wasn't was evidence that the account had been compromised; which it plainly isn't. It's quite evidently frustration at multiple edit conflicts being expressed angrily and badly. (My translation of "Gah! Edit conflict NUMBER THREE!" would have made the same point without the vulgarities.) And yes, that latter is another poorly expressed edit summary. I have no, and I think no-one else has any, reason to think that Rodhullandemu has lost control of xyr account. We only have Rodhullandemu challenging you to prove that xe hasn't lost control of xyr account, which was a silly way of making the point that xe was actually trying to make, because of course people took that as a reason to go into "ZOmG! Hacx0rEd adMin aCCount!!!!!" mode. Silliness here on everyone's part, including Rodhullandemu's, as I said.

  Such poor typing is an indication of something extraordinary, but guesswork as to what it is is pointless. If things are as stated on their face, and what is stated above is not simply another ill-chosen way to explain one's point, then we need two things to happen from this: everyone shaping up their behaviour and not going around telling one other to "fuck off" and calling one another "arse" any more; and Rodhullandemu talking to the arbitration committee in private, as has been done in the past in other such cases, about the matter.

  If you think that other editors would be blocked by now, then you need to read more administrators' noticeboard discussions. ☺ Part of the reason that so many problems seem to be perennial ones is that in fact many ordinary editors are given chance after chance (in general a good thing, of course). To pick a recent example that was just on this noticeboard: Witness McYel (talk · contribs), who did some fairly strange and ill-advised things, a lot stranger than (apparently) writing edit summaries under the influence, but yet retained the edit tool, had a little experiment in July with making edit summary accusation of "racist lies" at Jesus, and had to go as far as doing this over a whole load of article talk pages before being blocked again. Uncle G (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Uncle, your posts are difficult to read (and too long and off-topic :) I'm a "she", Rod's a "he"; I don't know what that other stuff represents. Other than that, you've got still got quite a lot wrong there, but this situation has been resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec to Uncle G)Are you seriously suggesting that Rodhull's behaviour is not his responsibility but is somehow the fault of assorted other nameless editors who use naughty words from time to time? If he has no more autonomy than that, what is he doing with the tools? Your general all round tickings off and exhortations to better behaviour, as in people took that as a reason to go into ZOmg..., everyone shaping up their behaviour, silliness here on everyone's part are as offensive as they are unhelpful.Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

for what its worth

I have left Rod a note about the discussion here and when he comes back editing we can see what he has got to say for himself. I don't see this thread as creating anything more constructive at the present time and if there are no objections I suggest we close it down. Off2riorob (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with shutting it down: the two issues are resolved. Rod's claim that his account was compromised was retracted by him, and he's been asked to stop interacting with Malleus. The rest is up to others; I wish him well in resolving whatever is affecting him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Radiopathy's violation of indefinite 1RR restriction

Resolved

 – User:Radiopathy blocked two weeks and placed on indefinite 0rr restriction by User:Gwen Gale. N419BH 18:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Radiopathy is on indefinite 1R restriction, but within 24hrs Radiopathy has violated that restriction. See here and here. Radiopathy may also be WP:WIKIHOUNDING: he made an revert to an seemingly innocuous of mine at Media Matters for America edit, and reverted another edit of mine at Alcoholics Anonymous[51]. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

One change, one revert. Not a violation of the restriction. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how you can argue that, given that both edits make the same change; they both revert the same edit. Just because they change something else while reverting doesn't make it any less of a revert.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with HJ. Radiopathy (RP) has made a revert under the guise of a change, and after an accepted compromise was in place, made another revert, added up to a 1RR violation. But I believe I could be more thorough in making the case, and will attempt to rectify this. RP made the initial change Nov 11, with the edit summary stating "the band has>the band have." After a couple of reverts, discussion ensued on the talk page next day. The issue was whether to say "the band has" or "the band have", as RP said in the edit summary noted above. While the discussion was underway and consensus not yet achieved, I made a change that made the "have" vs "has" argument moot by using wording that used neither. After this change 13 RP made the first revert, saying "per discussion" reinstating the contentious phrase "the band have" (for which is still exists no consensus developed). RP's second revert came within 24rs the edit summary of which mistakenly said my change was "undiscussed", though another editor had by then approved the change whole heartedly Another editor has since restored my change.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I may be assuming bad faith here, but even after an experienced user who has been here far longer, and has far more edits than RP tells him that genre changes are not vandalism, he insists that it is. I'm sure I don't need to say so here, since I'm sure everyone knows this is not the case, but to be clear; vandalism is a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia, as said at the first line on WP:VANDALISM. To this end, it seems they are trying to game their 1rr restriction, as 'reverting vandalism' was exempt from it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I also disagree. He clearly undid the work of other editors two times. It doesn't have to be an undo to be a revert. You should know that.--Crossmr (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:RV "More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I spent quite a while looking at the recent history and have just rechecked it. I can't see what the first diff was reverting. I see there was a brief edit war over has v have the other day, but the first diff provided above, as far as I can work out, is an unrelated grammatical change from "by the band" to "the band have". Am I missing something or are you gents submitting this as a continuation of the previous edit war? If it's the latter, then a case could be made for a block, but I'd prefer to have all the facts first, so if it's the former, I'd be grateful if someone would supply me with the diff that made the original change to "by the band" which RP is alleged to have reverted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

RP's reversion, read the edit summary, and the original edit that inserted the text, so yes, RP was edit warring.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hold on, one of those was the wrong diffs; this revert was the original one RP made, which was reverting this edit. RP, in under 12 hours, then made this revert, therefore violating his 1rr restriction.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the admin's desire to be careful, and can understand how confusing the timeline can seem. RP has insisted by reverts that the article must say "the band have", and will not accept "the band has" or a compromise that makes the dichotomy moot. In brief, RP made a change on Nov 11, it was reverted, and there followed was an ongoing discussion regarding the revert that never resovled. In the middle of these discussions, I installed a compromise wording on Nov 13. That same day within hours of each other RP reverted to the same disputed wording twice.

1. RP 1st changed (and I tried to present this instance as a change and not a revert) from "the band has" to "the band have." Nov 11
2. After a couple of reverts it was left at "the band has" while it was discussed.
3. I edited the disputed section so neither wording - "the band has" or "the band have" was used. I replaced "a practice the band has generally maintained since" with "a practice generally maintained since by the band." [52]
4. On Nov 13 RP made the first revert within 24hrs. The wording became "a practice the band have generally maintained since." Though this was sure to be contentious and was not needed, and though the discussion was ongoing and consensus was not established, RP's edit summary said "per discusssion."
5. The second revert came hours later and it erroneously said "rv undiscussed change." Another editor has already endorsed the compromise.
6. The current version [53] repudiates RP's revert via the edit summary which said "This is a reasonable way around the disputed construct."

A little background: "The band has" and "the band have" have both been used and reverted back and forth for years, though the "the band has" the first usage to appear years ago. "The band has" had been in place for some time, enough to fairly regard RP's first edit at issue as a change. The reverts are not exact undos, but they reverse the reverses the "actions of other editors...in part" twice within 24hrs.

Coincident has been the Wikihounding cited above, and hostile postings of his which I have deleted from my talk page after he restored them from redacted form.[54]. All of this without provocation on my part. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I stepped through the edits, and agree that it's a clear violation of Radiopathy's 1RR restriction. I have included Diff #1 (from two days earlier) only to show that #2 and #3 are both reverts to his preferred version. His comment 'per discussion' makes no sense because the discussion has reached no conclusion:

Page: The Rolling Stones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Radiopathy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. 22:04, 11 November 2010 (edit summary: "the band has>the band have") [Included here to show that both #2 and #3 are reverts]
2. 02:25, 13 November 2010 (edit summary: "per discussion")
3. 13:07, 13 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 396451813 by The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) rv undiscussed change")

Radiopathy was notified of this ANI about ten hours ago and has continued to edit on lots of other subjects without responding here. The underlying issue here is a trivial grammar point, but the linked-to ANI (February 2010) which imposed the indefinite 1RR was full of concern that Radiopathy would not stop edit warring. Should we continue to escalate from the previous one-month block (imposed in May 2010)? A 24-hour block is unlikely to cause any change in his behavior, and he's had plenty of chances. EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I would say escalate the block since the one-month last time, since things haven't changed. Ed, I would also like you to note this explanation to RP that content disputes weren't vandalism and RP's insistence that it is, despite the fact that it plainly violates the definition of vandalism on wikipedia. Although I may be assuming bad faith here, it seems as though they are trying to game the 1rr restriction by claiming edits they disagree with 'are vandalism', and thus not subject to his restriction, which made an exception for 'reverting vandalism'. Even if he isn't trying to game the system, he needs to be coached on what is, and what is not, vandalism.

Getting back to the block, although I did say above escalation might be the right route, it might be better to also modify their 1rr restriction to be 1rr per week, instead of per day, as they have been edit warring with others elsewhere, I can dig up diffs if required.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

If I may interject here, similar situations have come up with Radiopathy before, and admins have declined to enforce the 1RR for various reasons. Radiopathy is well aware of what he's doing. When I pointed out six weeks ago at a 3RR complaint that Radiopathy had filed [55] against another editor that Radiopathy was also breaking his 1RR, HJ Mitchell agreed that Radiopathy had violated it, but declined to enforce the issue because he said the matter was dated. [56] Whether or not Radiopathy should have been blocked at the time is a dead issue, but he's done this before. Combined with his current actions in ignoring this ANI report, I think this shows Radiopathy pretty well ignores his 1RR. Dayewalker (talk) 06:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

And if this is stonewalled just long enough he could claim it's dated again...--Crossmr (talk) 09:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked Radiopathy for two weeks and put him under a 0rr restriction. If there's a consensus, now or later, for anything other than this outcome I'll be happy to see it handled as any admin sees fit without the need for asking me about it first. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

0RR seems wise, both because of the number of infringements of the 1RR restriction and to save this kind of confusion in future. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

As a non-admin, and as an editor who has dealt directly with RP, the 0RR is an improvement, but I have to remain skeptical that RP's compulsive nature will reassert itself, and wish possible serious consequences for violating 0RR and other edit warring tactics were spelled out, even if this is done informally. The editor is unlikely to reform and will continue to become disruptive. I agree that the admins have not been forceful enough with RP and should stop allowing a quasi-statute of limitations to be in effect: all violations of 0RR should have serious consequences regardless of when they are reported. RP systematically deletes records of blocks from his talk page, and less initiated editors will not know to look at the block log. This is a misleading tactic on his part, and should be recognized by the admins as such. I hate to say so, but the editor needs a scarlet letter attached, otherwise enabling by well intentioned admins will continue unabated. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Once the block is up, Rp will be about 1 revert away from an indef block. Hence I don't think this is going to noodle on much further. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

That would exactly what I asked for. It's good to have the consequence explicitly stated so you-didn't-tell-me defenses are limited. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards

Resolved

 – Blocked for now. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Could someone look at the edits being made to the Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards article by user talk:68.231.63.115 I can't tell if the person editing it is trying fix it or vandalize it. All I can say is he keeps making misspellings and his talk page leads me to think he is vandalizing, but I don't what to revert because I am not sure. Thanks! --CRJ200flyer (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It's someone fooling around with the 2011 section. If it continues, please take it to WP:AIV and they'll bring the hammer down. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

He has continued, and I'll do it myself unless someone has beaten me to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I posted him to AIV, but they're taking their time about it, so we'll just have to keep reverting until someone wakes up there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• The final Plastic Beach edit is not obviously vandalism. It superficially agreed with Doncamatic. Uncle G (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The user absolutely refuses to respond to or heed the many challenges on his page, and given his other weird entries, anything he posts is naturally assumed to be vandalism, or at least "messing around" with various articles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I've blocked the IP for the disruptive edits. If the user wishes to communicate, explain themselves, and request unblock I'll defer to other admins to respond as necessary. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
• User was clearly vandalizing; the hosts and other details involving Kids' Choice 2011 won't be announced until March at the earliest (they don't even have a venue yet), and there's no way based on both musical content and logistics that Gorillaz 'plays' the KCA's. Good block. Nate • (chatter) 02:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks and Sockpuppetry

Resolved

 – Done, by MuZemike who beat me to it

Please block Garyseven (talk · contribs) who has personally attacked me here and here by vandalizing my user and user talk page. Since 2007, he has been part of a sockfarm chronicled here. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I have determined that the Chris Dodd troll is the same as the sockpuppets of Kim Cardassian (talk · contribs). Therefore there are many sleeper accounts listed here that should be blocked as well.--William S. Saturn (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I confirmed and blocked a few more from the sock drawer, but the rest are stale and will need any ol' admin to handle without CU. –MuZemike 04:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Consensus Denial & Censorship by user "Marcus_Qwertyus" on M113 Wiki Page

Resolved

 – Another IP committing suicide. Golf clap. HalfShadow 05:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I want to report user "Marcus_Qwertyus"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Marcus_Qwertyus#Vandalism.3F

that he is attempting to apply his personal prejudices and censorship over the M113 Gavin Wiki page.

Since when is Wikipedia a conduit for lies and libel?

Marcus_Qwertyus is deleting edits by other people to deny a consensus on the M113 Wiki web page. This is in direct violation of the Wiki guidelines.

His obvious bias and personal prejudice against Mike Sparks (read his talk page) should result in him being removed from editing decisions on that page.

He is deleting edits by myself and others with NO FACTUAL BASIS OR JUSTIFICATION.

He just rants that he hates what Mike Sparks stands for in his discussion page. One of his statements contradicts itself: he edits the M113 page back to the "only one" person calls the M113 the Gavin wording while simultaneously, in-the-same-breadth complaining about OTHERS who agree with Mike editing the page to reflect that they also call the M113 the Gavin!

He cannot have it both ways.

If other people call the M113 the Gavin, then it can not be falsely stated that "only one" person does this.

In addition to requesting that Marcus_Qwertyus be removed from censorship abilities, I request arbitration on this issue to stop this non-sense by protecting the M113 page after the falsehoods are purged from it. There are others like factual errors that its armor is .5 to 1.5" thick when it's actually composed of 5083 aluminum alloy armor sheets 1.5 to 1.75" thick. The portion of the page where armor thickness is listed is not as far as I can tell open to edit corrections.

I am sick and tired of spending HOURS collecting FACTS and posting them to the M113 Wiki page; things like what THE CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE U.S. ARMY HAS SAID just to have a bigoted person like Marcus_Qwertyus delete these FACTS because they run contrary to his prejudices.

Show us that Wiki is worthy of our donations by standing up for factual integrity and fairness; and not letting some people treat Wiki pages like their private club house filled of their prejudices with a sign saying "FACTS KEEP OUT" posted.

To state that only when person calls the M113 the Gavin--when its obvious that thousands of people do is pure sour grapes--and deliberate LYING.

When he edits a book and there are several others as co-authors who call the M113 the Gavin, Marcus_Qwertyus is not in any position to continue to LIE and say ONLY ONE PERSON calls the M113 the Gavin.

If Mike has "followers" as Marcus and others admit on the Discussion page say---then Marcus needs to stop LYING that only "one person" is doing something. Moreover, if you google "m113 gavin" you will find THOUSANDS of web sites and pages that have nothing to do with Mike Sparks or any news organization--so that is yet another Marcus lie to say otherwise.

Moreover, when the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army General Casey says he wants a GCV-Light of under 20 tons who is "Marcus Qwertyus" to play god and delete his remarks?

HE IS THE CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE U.S. ARMY, that's FACTUAL REALITY.

This is yet more proof why Wiki is not deserving of any of our donations because jerks think they can monopolize the pages and be accountable to no one and no amount of FACTS.

98.88.209.220 (talk) 04:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I just reviewed the situation. I have never looked at these articles, but now that I have, I don't read it that way at all. All I see if you, and people you have invited to do so, attempting to force through edits against consensus, and against what reliable sources say. I don't see that Marcus Qwertyus has done anything wrong, but what I do see is you lowering the tone of the discourse by shouting about censorship, lies, and things like that, which is not exactly a positive way to work collaboratively. --Jayron32 05:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Mikey! As a word of advice... take your campaign elsewhere. You're not gonna win out here, buddy. Advice to others: RBI, probably Mike Sparks himself trying to push his agenda; the style is identical, and he's pushing Sparky's pet issue. rdfox 76 (talk) 05:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Simple fix is to SP the article; that'll put a thorn in his pants. HalfShadow 06:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Sarek + TreasuryTag + inappropriate RevDel

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

---

I wonder if someone could enlighten me as to which RevDel criterion my edit-summary of "rm nonsense" (for an edit which was removing nonsense) met in order for it to be hidden by SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs), particularly given that you they by no means neutral in relation to me? Thanks, ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 08:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I never thought the day would come when I'd agree with TT. Make it "today". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding the last part of your sentence, TT, particularly the 'given that you they' part.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, bad copy-paste. Clarified it now :) ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 08:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright, now I can understand it more. That aside, I too do not see how any of the rev-del criteria apply to this. I believe an explanation is owed; but even then, I am going to AGF that it was a mistake.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• hmm I'm joining the choir, this was a completely inappropriate use of the tools by an admin who clearly has issues with TT. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

  You mean "by an admin" I presume? Not being pedantic, just want to be clear... ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 08:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, fixed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Hmmmm... well, "rm nonsense" doesnt seem an appropriate edit summary for removing "not nonsense". A grammar or wording or redundancy issue done in apparent good faith isn't exactly nonsense. While I am not claiming that justifies the revdel (nor that it doesn't - I dont know enough about the revdel criteria), I wouldn't think TT's edit summary was warranted either. At the very least, it's not an appropriate edit summary - and may possibly imply vandalism or bad faith editing or similar on the part of the editor who's "nonsense" was being removed. Such types of things sounds familiar for some reason... ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 08:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

  The accuracy of the edit-summary is not the point; we are talking about whether or not it met any of the RevDel criterion. However, I should point out that the material added was incorrect (=nonsense), although, as you say, doubtlessly added in good faith. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 09:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

  It isn't "nice", but if you think it's "grossly insulting" or "degrading", you need to check what you've been smoking... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• I've restored as well outside the revdel policy. The edit summary is "ordinary incivility", and also outside policy. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

  (ec)Maybe it was revdel'd (Crit #3 and previous history taken into account?) because it seemed bitey to a brand new IP editor for his very first, obviously good faith, edit? Though I am curious why you would be so bitey. I haven't figured out what was wrong with their info yet, but it's been a while since I've watched Dr Who (almost 2 years). ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 09:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

  I would be happy to discuss Doctor Who history with you on your talkpage, but it is irrelevant here. I should also point out that WP:BITE is clearly not grounds for an involved admin to RevDel an edit-summary. Surely you can see this? ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 09:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to at least know if the last couple years are worth catching up on (via my talk page of course). And yes, as I said, I do not have any real understanding of the criteria for revdel (yet - reading it atm). ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 09:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No, reverting was not bitey in one bit, and I would argue neither was RevDeleting it. However, I think the rough consensus forming is that RevDeletion was not necessary here, as there was nothing grossly insulting, patently disruptive, or containing any potentially private information to warrant RevDeletion. –MuZemike 09:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's my question: TT, did you ever approach Sarek first to ask why they did it in order to give them first chance to "fix" it, or did you just run here instead? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I came straight here, because Sarek has a history of non-response to my complaints about administrative action (you commented on my last such complaint, so know all about this). Since we also have an ongoing personal wiki-dispute, I thought it best to get some outside input. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 12:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This seems like another misuse of WP:REVDEL, in some ways similar to the instance that prompted Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nyttend. Yes, TT's edit summary was unhelpful and slightly WP:BITEy; but it simply didn't warrant RevDel, and clearly falls outside the policy. (And that's before worrying about the history between Sarek and TT.) A much more appropriate response would have been to check if the IP had been welcomed (they hadn't, I've just done it), to offset the biteyness a bit, and to remind TT that "nonsense" should be reserved for cases where anyone can agree that it's nonsense from looking at the diff alone, without any knowledge of the subject. Otherwise, "inaccurate", "untrue", etc should be used. Rd232 ^talk 11:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

What's it going to take to drive home the point that RevDel needs to be used much more sparingly than it is now? It seems as though every concern around its initial implementation has come true. Shadowjams (talk) 11:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about that. Any tool will be misused occasionally, that's life. But for instance, it would be helpful if RevDel logs were separated from the Deletion logs, to allow easier review. Rd232 ^talk 11:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I see this rather much like Rd232. That REVDEL was mistaken, but it was swiftly undone and I've not as yet seen any hints of overall flaws in having this tool or how it's put together. As for the logs, there are sundry glitches and hitches in how those are configured, I think mostly owing to how tools and their flags have layered up through the years. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Gwen: when you use the word "mistaken" you are suggesting that Sarek "mistook" the word nonsense for "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little/no encyclopedic or project value" – or what? Not trying to be picky, genuinely trying to place together a potential good-faith scenario for the redaction. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 12:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Sarek didn't like the word and went beyond the bounds of what the tool is meant to do, call that mistaken if you like. Meanwhile, calling any good faith edit nonsense stirs up lots of worries, you shouldn't have done that. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification. Personally, I wouldn't call that "mistaken" – in the UK, there's often a scandal where a town council uses counter-terrorist powers to carry out surveillance on citizens accused of putting recyclable goods in the wrong wheelie-bin, but even those councils haven't claimed that this misuse/abuse of authority was "mistaken." However, I do now see where you're coming from. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 13:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

There was nothing here that could not have been dealt with in a way that included less drama. It was never taken to the Admin directly, and based on the title, it was clearly a "look, this specific admin f'ed up again". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you genuinely believe that if I went to Sarek's talkpage, said, "Sarek – please could you consider restoring my edit summary, since it didn't meet any of the RevDel criteria?" then they would have complied?
Do you not think the fact that Sarek has repeatedly taken administrative action against me which has been overturned or otherwise nullified suggests a pattern of problematic behaviour?
If you could answer either or both of these questions, it would be appreciated. ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 13:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd ask it this way: Would going to Sarek's talk page and pointing out that his actions were in violation of WP:CRD have cost you anything? You assume (possibly correctly, possibly not) that Sarek would not have reacted to such a notice and not corrected their mistake but you could at least have given him a chance to do it, couldn't you? After all, you can still always come here and notify the community in that case. Regards SoWhy 13:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I have, many times, attempted to discuss Sarek's abuse of adminship of me, and never has it yielded any results. No, it would not have cost me anything. But I quite reasonably chose not to do so. Also, as I said above, I think that Sarek's repeated abuse of adminship against me personally needs looking at by the community. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 13:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you, in a non-threatening way, asked Sarek to talk about this with you? That would be the first step in WP:DR. Only saying. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I should not need to talk to Sarek about the possibility of them not abusing their admin tools against me. They know they shouldn't do it. If they choose to nevertheless, discussion will not help – as, indeed, it has not helped on any previous occasion: check Sarek's talkpage history. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 13:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

If the admin and TT had never been in contact before then I would be agreeing with Bwilkins, SoWhy, Gwen Gale et al, but as TT says, they have been in conflict before and past experience has shown that Sarek has not provided helpful responses. I can't imagine what the point of posting any sort of message would be, other than to meet bureaucratic red tape. AD 13:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then I think the thing to do first is wait for Sarek to speak up. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Piling on agreement that this was an inappropriate use of revdel, but we should wait to see what Sarek has to say. AD 13:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

There is a problem here, isn't there. When an admin clicks the button to delete the page, it pops up the following message [[57]], and the admin cannot revdelete until they confirm that they are revdeleting under these terms - like signing to confirm that you have read the terms and conditions. The question then is - why is it the proper response of the person subject to this clearly out of policy action supposed to be to take the admin aside and point out their 'mistake'? It is kind of hard to see how it can be a mistake, since the admin has to confirm that it was grossly improper and that he/she is specifically not removing run of the mill incivility. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I think the REVDEL was utterly, wholly out of bounds. Some editors may be mistaking what mistake means, here's a dicdef. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I see. I would concur that choosing to use the tool outside policy in this way was a mistake. Doesn't alter my other view - why should the person subject to the mistake be expected to beard the admin in his lair alone.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Because AN/I is the equivalent of dialing 911; having limited resources and time we not unnaturally expect that editors will not use it as a first resort. Unhappily, it is increasingly being used by some as a first resort.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If someone has mugged you, the normal thing to do is to call the police, not go after them and say, "Actually, what you did was illegal... could you consider giving me back my property and apologising?" ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 15:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No analogy is perfect; nevertheless, AN/I will be snowed if it is used as the first resort.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt, you should be criticising Sarek for redacting an edit-summary, which met none of the criteria, from an editor with whom they have a long history of adversity; you should not be criticising me for pointing this out. I am disappointed, though sadly not surprised, that you have chosen to do the exact opposite. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 15:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

TT, I agree this may be a worry, but alikening a mistaken use of REVDEL with a property crime, put forth through threat of bodily harm, is rather thick. Please don't do that. This is a website, Sarek hid an edit from the view of non-admins, which I think was untowards, a mistaken use of access to a database, but it was after all swiftly reshown to the public. There may be ongoing worries between you and Sarek, but Sarek has not mugged you. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Time to roll out Wehwalt's excellent, "No analogy is perfect," line, again, from above perhaps? He compared ANI to a life-and-death police service; not at all unreasonable, and I guess you don't consider it unreasonable either, since you didn't object to that from him. But nor was it unreasonable of me to respond in the same vein. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 15:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Don't take my lack of an answer to anything on this website as agreement. ANI has aught to do with police powers, it's about access to the database of an online encyclopedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Weren't we going to wait for Sarek to reply? And TT, that is the reason why I have not commented on Sarek's action. You yourself have been well heard from in this thread.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Weren't we going to wait for Sarek to reply? Yes, and it looks to me as if we are. And TT, that is the reason why I have not commented on Sarek's action. Fine, though I would still expect you to state your opinion that it was not a valid use of RevDel (regardless of the motivation and/or good faith and/or bad faith behind it) – I assume that that is your opinion? You yourself have been well heard from in this thread. I know. And I intend to continue responding to points, as is my right, and arguably my responsibility. ╟─TreasuryTag►pikuach nefesh─╢ 15:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes TT, we do know by now that you'd like to see Sarek de-sysopped. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you the same person who objected to people inferring their opinions if not explicitly stated by them? ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 15:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you want? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I have outlined what I would like to come out of this thread on your talkpage by coincidence! ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 16:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) If this were the first time any worries had cropped up, I'd say (and said) the thing to do would be, ask the admin first. However, I've been told this is not in any way the first time, so given this, my own outlook would be, only as a beginning, one might wait a bit for Sarek to say something here. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

As has been noted above, further pile-on discussion here regarding this particular instance of rev-deletion is really somewhat pointless until SarekOfVulcan has an opportunity to comment here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Concur. BTW, my expressing a personal opinion, without awaiting Sarek's comments, would have needlessly polarized the discussion. The facts will be the same when Sarek comments, and the outcome not yet stale.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

OK; that's a fair point. But I hope, then, that you will accept my comment, that criticising me also polarised the discussion, since I was one party to this dispute and the other had not yet spoken. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 16:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not think I criticized you, at worst I criticized your actions. However, I can see that you, following this discussion closely as you are, might think that I was criticizing only one side's actions. I hope we've cleared that up, and that (unless I forget!) am likely to have something to say about Sarek's action.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Then allow me to rephrase my comment, which I hope you will take on board in its edited form :) Criticising my actions but not the actions of the other party to the dispute also polarised the discussion, since the other had not yet spoken. ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 16:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

TT, I don't think you helped your case here. I was on receiving end of same, and I went repeatedly and politely to the admin's talk page, asking for an explanation and response, until I let the admin know just what I thought of him after four days of non-response. If you had done that, your position would be stronger now; the first step in DR is to talk to the other party, and by not doing that, we will never know if SoV would have reversed himself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

...and another one. Have you read my comments above about my previous attempts to address Sarek's admin actions? This is not supposed to be the, "Let's all criticise TreasuryTag for being on the receiving end of an abusive admin's wrath," thread. Start an RfC if you want to criticise my handling of Sarek's abuse. But please don't pull this discussion further off-topic than it's already gone. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 16:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

TT, The only reason you took it to ANI instead of asking either Sarek, another admin, or even myself to undo the RevDel was to make Sarek look bad "in front of everyone". You clearly have no issues contacting admins usually, why this time? Was it really an "incident" that needed immediate attention? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I took this to ANI for two reasons, both of which I outlined above, if you would care to read the discussion. One—my previous attempts to discuss Sarek's use of admin actions regarding me came to naught. Two—I considered it time that the community look into Sarek's consistent misapplication (note my choice of word) of the tools in relation to me. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 16:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, as TT has explained multiple times, the admin in question has been in conflict with him before, and has not responded in the past. Contacting him would have served no purpose whatsoever. AD 16:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, TT, I did read the previous commentary (when I comment on something without fully informing myself, I say so). Regardless, you would have a stronger position if you had contacted him. Since you didn't, we don't know how he might have acted if you had. This is not criticism of you-- it's not fun to be on the receiving end of misuse of tools-- just a suggestion. If you had contacted him, and he still hand't responded, your case would be stronger. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the edit that TreasuryTag reverted as "nonsense" was actually completely correct in the context of the RTD/Moff Doctor Who episodes, if not terribly encyclopedic. He has been warned about his misuse of edit summaries before. Instead of blocking him for his repeated violations of WP:CIVIL, I chose to remove his incorrect and uncivil edit summary. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Not at all relevant here, but the Christmas Day 1965 episode in which William Hartnell broke the fourth wall and wished all the viewers a very merry Christmas springs to mind as contradicting the IP's claim and therefore rendering my edit-summary "accurate." ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 16:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

SoV, that's not a satisfactory response. Please read WP:REVDEL and all of the commentary at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nyttend. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Going to the RFC now. While I read, is there anyone who disagrees with my assertion that the edit reverted as nonsense was actually accurate?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant. You violated REVDEL policy, you misused the tool. I suggest TT also read that RFC, so he can consider how he might have proceeded here, instead of starting another ANI three-ring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant, and yes I do, as explained just above. ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 16:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, the IP's edit was only about specials "since the revival of Doctor Who" and the example above was before the revival. But that's not the point. You could have used better language for that summary and could have asked Sarek directly instead of coming here and Sarek did violate policy with that action, pure and simple. Now that this is clarified, can we just close this and let it go? Regards SoWhy 17:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, still irrelevant, but I took the clause added by the IP to refer to the concept of a Doctor Who Xmas special, not to the concept of a post-2005 Doctor Who Xmas special. Re-reading it, I can see that this was ambiguous (...perhaps another reason to remove the edit...) but am nevertheless sure that its accuracy or otherwise is nothing to do with this discussion. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 17:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguous? What's ambiguous about "It is the show's sixth Christmas Special since the revival of Doctor Who in 2005, and is the first not to star the 10th Doctor, played by David Tennant"?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

What's ambiguous about, "Whether or not the initial edit was accurate is completely irrelevant to whether the revert should have been RevDel-ed," ? ╟─TreasuryTag►pikuach nefesh─╢ 17:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

What SG and TT said. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Read through the RFC. I'm going to sit out for a while -- I have to go fix something for a client. Back later. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Sarek, the "incorrectness" or incivility of the edit and its summary have absolutely nothing to do with whether it was appropriate to REVDEL. You know better than that, and better than to try to switch the blame to the other guy. Skomorokh 17:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No, but it's entirely relevant to whether I can WP:IAR. TreasuryTag's edit summary was incivil and incorrect. Since there was no Christmas Special for the Ninth Doctor, pointing this out was not nonsense, so we was WP:BITEing for no good reason -- which he has a long track record of doing. I removed the edit summary to reduce the effect of the BITE. I chose not to block for persistent incivility. If he had said "inaccurate, Hartnell had a Christmas episode" nothing would have happened. The IP's edit did not add enough encyclopedic value, imo, to fight about. But instead, he chose to attack another editor, as he has done so many times before.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Aha, now it's all explained: although the material was explicity excluded from the RevDel criteria as "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations, Sarek nevertheless thought that this was a good use of WP:IAR to trump both the criteria and WP:UNINVOLVED. Got it. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 17:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

SoV, you are making the same faulty argument that Nyttend made. Did you read all of the links, including the talk page, of that RfC? Are you aware of the very tight restrictions put on the use of that tool, precisely because of concerns it would be misused in this way? Is misuse of RevDel a systemic problem among admins? If so, we need something to educate. You do not get to IAR admin policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

TT was untowards to call the edit nonsense but that bitey edit summary didn't fall within what I understand to be the bounds for deletion from public view under WP:REVDEL. If anything, it shielded TT's heedless summary from review by other editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of IAR

Upon further review of the relevant policies and RFCs, it's clear that I was incorrect to use IAR in this case. I should not have removed TT's edit summary, and I apologize to him for doing so. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Appreciated ... since you're talking, Nyttend's not, and I'm not an admin so I can't see that allegedly big disclaimer, could you help us understand how you missed this, and how we can improve <whatever> so other admins will see and understand the proper use of that tool? It is disproportionately upsetting to be on the wrong end of RevDel, since the impression is left that one entered a grossly inappropriate or defamatory edit summary, that non-admins can't even see. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

What can't you see SG? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

SG, it's listed at MediaWiki:Revdelete-text - do you have the rights to view that? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'd suggest pointing the revdeling admin straight to Wikipedia:REVDEL#Misuse with a comment that the community has determined that RevDel is not an appropriate place to IAR. I don't think the big honking disclaimer could be improved. You can't spell everything out everywhere -- you have to assume that people will read what they're supposed to, even if that's obviously not always the case.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(ecs) A boatload of things :) When this first happened to me, I didn't even know it was a policy vio, because WP:REVDEL is not linked anywhere in the edit summary. Less experienced editors than myself would have no idea where to go to figure out what they did. They'd do what I did-- ask the admin who RD'd me, and he refused to answer, but other talk page stalkers pointed me to the policy. So, the person on the receiving end doesn't necessarily even know what happened. Second, we can't see the deleted edit summary, so far all we know, it was grossly insulting, and we assume that the person who entered it was grossly inappropriate. Third, we can't see whatever big disclaimer I am told pops up with the tool when an admin uses the tool (I think someone posted that message at the talk page of the Nyttend RFC). We put in a proposal at the Village Pump for the edit summary to at least link to WP:REVDEL, but I don't think that has happened. SoV, I believe that text was added there after and as a result of what happened to me-- if friendly talk page stalker admins hadn't helped out, I wouldn't even have known policy had been violated in my case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

So I guess that if a statement of yours is RevDel'd, and all you did was 'ordinary incivility', I guess you are a victim of admin abuse then.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The normal edit summary would have been something like "Incorrect". Although it occurs to me that if TT had said "Nonsense!" (note the exclamation point), that would have conveyed the same message. "rm nonsense" is off the mark, as it is typically used with pure vandalism (like "hi" or random junk), not with a sentence that reads normally even if it happens to be incorrect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

That's really helpful, Wehwalt. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, you've been expressing your opinion all over the wiki on this. Surely I can express mine? And there is a case to be made that editors who use edit summaries for a purpose other than that for which they are designed are hardly worthy of sympathy.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Wehwalt, clearly my null edit summary was grossly offensive, a personal attack, and vandalism. Do you have something new to add, or are you just grinding the old axe? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Move to close 2

I consider Sarek's response above sufficient regards the RevDel issue, especially as a sampling of other Sarek RevDel's suggests no wider issues. However I would suggest to him that the history between him and TT is such that he should really avoid taking admin actions directly. One of the things WP:INVOLVED is there to do is protect admins as well as other editors from the consequences of errors of judgement arising from involvement. There's always someone else who can do it, if necessary at the involved admin's request - but at least then you've got a second opinion ex ante. That all said, move to close this thread now before further unhelpful squabbling ensues. Rd232 ^talk 18:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

With an acknowledgment from SoV of INVOLVED with TT, I agree with closure, and commend SoV for the apology. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It's possible I've crossed the INVOLVED line with TT at some point, so to be safe, I'll put him on the very short list of people I will no longer use admin tools on. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Also agree. Matter resolved, hopefully everyone is wiser.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Belen Echandia

I am asking for a bit of help/advice on what to do about some of the behaviour that has been happening regarding the Belen Echandia article. I first discovered the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belen Echandia where I closed the AFD as keep, it had previously been speedy deleted several times before under the blatant advertising criteria.

Following this I have been approached on my talk page (starting at User talk:Davewild#Belen Echandia) by both the editor (User:Unixtastic) who originally nominated the latest version for speedy deletion and by an editor (User:Findingtruths) claiming to be the owner of the company. Some negative statements about the company have been alleged without any reliable sources being found to back them up (they are based on forum posts from here from what I can see) such as here and here.

User:Findingtruths made 2 edits which came close to being legal threats (diffs - 1 and 2). Both myself and User:Syrthiss have warned Findingtruths about the no legal threats policy and they have been careful since then to avoid anything that could be interpreted as that, but are (possibly understandably) concerned about the allegations being made about their company (as seen on the latest post to my talk page here).

Now a second AFD has been opened (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belen Echandia (2nd nomination)) 4 days after I closed the first AFD. This second AFD was opened by an editor who has made no contributions before this (User:ChecktheRhyme) who was quickly supported by the editor who first nominated it for speedy deletion - User:Unixtastic. Since then two editors with few or no edits outside of the AFD have argued for keeping the article User:Amzg and User:PeachAzalea.

There are several issues here (negative unsourced allegations, possible legal threats and single purpose accounts) and I would appreciate an uninvolved admin (or admins) having a look and see if any action should be taken. Since the first AFD I have edited the article to try and ensure it was not promotional so don't consider myself as uninvolved any longer. Davewild (talk) 10:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if I am supposed to post here, so apologies if this is incorrect, please guide me as to the correct procedure. This is a serious situation for Belen Echandia. On 12 November someone started creating complaints threads on the internet as follows:
  • http://www.scamfound.com/f13/belen-echandia-quality-customer-service-bags-145044.html
• There is also one on complaintsboard.com but I cannot post it here because Wikipedia lists it as a blocked site.

  You will notice that both appear to be created by the same person, and just one person.

  Whatever is happening at Wikipedia, outside of this it appears/we feel (perhaps wrongly but we wanted to share this information so that you are aware) that someone is attempting to bring the relationship of Belen Echandia into disrepute. findingtruths (talk) 12.14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Ignoring the semblance of legal threats, it does appear that Findingtruths (talk · contribs) has two valid questions:
  • Unixtastic, do you have a conflict of interest here? Please declare it if so.
  • Unixtastic, why do you think that a source written and self-published in a discussion forum by an unidentifiable person using a pseudonym is a source that satisfies our Wikipedia:Reliable sources requirements, especially when you yourself are throwing the abbreviation "WP:SELFPUB" around in your arguments?
• Findingtruths, our reliable sources criteria exclude both self-serving statements made by individuals about themselves and self-published statements made by wholly unidentifiable people whose reputations for fact checking and accuracy cannot be determined. As such, an article cannot be written either based wholly upon corporate autobiography or upon what pseudonymous unidentiiable people self-submit to WWW discussion fora. Our standards for accuracy and neutrality require that what information there is in the encyclopaedia come from people who are independent from the subject, who are writing with fact as their aim and checking their facts, who are identifiable, and whose reputations for fact checking and accuracy are both determinable and good. This is why we exclude subjects for which there is nothing but autobiography, puffery, and press releases available; as well as content based upon sources whose authors cannot be identified at all.

  It may well be that your company is not documented, in depth, in multiple independent reliable sources. (I haven't checked out the articles supplied.) If so, we cannot have an article on your company at all, because we have no way to provide information that readers can check for themselves with people who can be trusted to have done the research, to have checked their facts, and not have agendas superceding factual accuracy that slant their writing. Yes, this means that there are things that, no matter how true, cannot reach the stage of being in a tertiary source encyclopaedia, because the world hasn't actually documented them properly yet. They haven't gone through the process of becoming a well-documented part of the corpus of human knowledge, and don't belong in an encyclopaedia whose purpose is to record and systematize that which has.

  What we need, from everyone writing, are sources that are in depth, reliable (i.e. from identifiable people with good reputations writing factually), and independent. Sometimes, editors with axes to grind, either pro or con, ignore those requirements. This is a shame and an individual failing on their parts. But that doesn't alter what our requirements are. Our system here is that such things are policed by the editorship at large, and editors are held to the requirements by their fellows if necessary.

  It is not a good idea to solicit support from friends and relatives in a discussion on Wikipedia; nor a good idea to create multiple accounts to give the false impression of multiple people, whatever one's position. It backfires quite often. It is a good idea to be exceedingly strict and careful when writing about subjects close to onesself. Uncle G (talk) 13:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you. Please do review all documentation and all references supplied. I am trying to be extremely careful about what I write because I have a clear conflict of interest which I have always declared and because I am not too familiar with Wikipedia or its practices. I originally took an interest in this page because someone told me that they had set up a Belen Echandia wikipedia page and asked me for permission to use the logo. I then saw that someone kept trying to get the page taken down, with the reasoning that Original reason by Unixtastic the person setting it up was closely connected to the company. I have clarified that his only link is that his sister once interviewed me, is a customer and fan and has since submitted contributions to our website (lots of our customers do this). Neither work for Belen Echandia, both reside in Canada and we are in Europe. I have never met the first, the second I have met only once when she was in Sweden. This reason was rectified when a second person (a customer) took over the editing of the page. Several editors then decided both that the company was notable enough to have an entry and that the rewritten copy was acceptable. Second reason also from Unixtastic many allegations about the quality of our product and service, all unsubstantiated.

  As for whether we are worthy of a Wikipedia entry. I don't suppose that it is up to me to argue for or against this. But to supply some further information: The company has been around since 2004. Since then we have had articles written about us in numerous high quality publications, see links below. We have been featured on CNN (video link is also supplied) and we have a forum dedicated to the company on the highly reputable site The Purse Forum, which contains over 100,000 posts. We have customers all over the world. Stores from Riyadh to London have stocked or do stock our bags. The company is admittedly niche and not a conglomerate but we have a loyal following worldwide.

  When we originally saw the Wikipedia page posted, we put it up excitedly on our Facebook page and Twitter feed. Almost immediately someone acted to try to have it removed. You can read the history on our talk page. We have over 800 followers on our Facebook page and on Twitter. Belen Echandia has a culture of contribution both to articles on our website and to product development. It might sound unusual, but our customers talk to one another on a daily basis on the internet, both on the Purse Forum, on Twitter and on Facebook so it is not at all odd that one of them saw that the page had been taken down and stepped in to rewrite it, because of a genuine interest in doing so.

  The User Unixtastic has not only done his/her best to have this page removed, h/she has also made comments on his talk page to me that suggest that I have bipolar disorder and need to take drugs to correct it. I was very close to reporting this behaviour but I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt and tackle the problem by discussing it instead. This failed. Please review my attempts to discuss on his/her talk page and on mine. The comment originally posted on the deletion page purporting to be from a purse forum member was unsigned either by the member or by signbot and was later signed by Unixtastic on behalf of the other poster, which I thought was a little odd. I have been transparent with every post regarding my COI as required by Wikipedia guidelines and I have always stated that I am only involved from the point of view that my company is involved and I am genuinely worried about some of the unverified statements made in reference to it.

  You can review a full press page here: http://www.belenechandia.com/press.aspx?inturlid=8&intid=0 Although this is our website, the publications as you can see are genuine. Here are a selection of links:

  Belen Echandia on CNN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmdRFrDEWH0

  Vogue http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/daily/090430-belen-echandia-launches-a-bespoke-s.aspx http://www.vogue.co.uk/beauty/news/080416-belen-echandia-angel-makeup-bag.aspx http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/daily/2007-10/071005-the-echandia-allure.aspx http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/daily/2007-04/070426-some-echandia-evening.aspx http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/daily/2004-12/041209-hot-property.aspx

  Harpers http://www.harpersbazaar.co.uk/fashion/belen-echandia-clutch-115399

  Our story on HandbagDesigner 101 http://www.handbagdesigner101.com/designer/18/belen_echandia_cawthra_jackie

  Hilary Magazine – story etc http://www.hilary.com/fashion/belen-echandia.html

  You Tube – all independent reviews MOMFLUENTIAL – you tube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siCyOGdu3To

  www.momgenerations.com - you tube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8O1RagMWps http://momgenerations.com/2009/10/fashion-advice-belen-echandia/

  If I can be of further assistance or answer further questions about my own conduct here, please let me know. findingtruths (talk) 13.55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Welcome to the World Wide Web, alas! Yes, one will hit a knee-jerk bias against commercial interests. There are a multitude of reasons underpinning this, which this noticeboard, and indeed Wikipedia as a whole, aren't the place to discuss or pass judgement upon. One will, as you have, meet people who think that they can diagnose and accuse others of mental illness based upon a very limited text-only pseudonymous interaction. Such has no place here at Wikipedia, either, aside from the fact that any medical professional would laugh at such a methodology. Unixtastic's interaction with you was exceedingly poor. But bear in mind that xe — nor indeed Davewild nor I — does not represent the Wikipedia editor community as a whole, any more than, as you notice, one customer represents your entire customer base. There are good and bad. There is also good and bad verifiable information, and bear in mind that anyone or any organization that is a subject of an article here has to take their lumps on that — as long as the information is well researched, peer reviewed, and properly published (and acknowledged by the world at large) by the sources to which it is scrupulously sourced here.

    I hope that anyone passing by here will be encouraged to visit the new AFD discussion, which I personally (in response to Davewild's original question) think should probably remain open at this point since it is looking likely to be a lot more thorough than the last, even though it has been started close on the heels of the previous one. You would do well to cite those sources that you have in the article itself or (better, bearing in mind the COI guidelines) on its talk page, hyperlinking to the talk page from the AFD discussion page. This is the administrators' noticeboard for incidents, and the issue here is mainly a procedural one by Davewild addressed to fellow administrators, who are the people (in the main) entrusted with the closure of AFD discussions. You are almost certainly not going to get the consensus as to deletion decided here, in part because the administrators reading this noticeboard will (rightly, because they know the ropes around here) all go to the AFD discussion itself, and in part because the other editors patrolling AFD won't even know about this noticeboard discussion, this being a big place with lots of corners.

    By the way: The SineBot is an automated crutch to relieve people from a tedious Wikigmoing task. In the past, before a volunteer kindly decided to run it, going to the edit history and manually adding {{unsigned2}} was what we all used to do. It hasn't been confined to the 'bot by the advent of the 'bot, and any editor operating in good faith can still do things the manual way. Uncle G (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I haven't posted these articles before because of the COI. I have deliberately not edited the page at all.I will do that now. I understand about signbot, but I meant that Unixtastic signed the post not on behalf of himself but on behalf of the other person. How would he know who it was? Apologies for my naivety perhaps there is a way to tell that I don't know about. Thanks. findingtruths (talk) 14.25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

But for Uncle G's remark above, I would have speedy-closed the new AfD as an abuse of process, and I still think that would be the right outcome. The last one was closed as keep less than a week ago, on the reasonable ground that the company was adequately notable and any bias in the article did not require deletion but could be fixed by editing. The new nomination, made by an SPA less than four hours after its account was set up, does nothing to address that and is pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT. A feud is evidently raging, but that does not matter: whether the company is good, bad, or indifferent should not affect whether its article is kept, only whether it is notable enough. JohnCD (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• I may have reacted badly to user:findingtruths but only because that user attempted to prevent the article in question being corrected, deleted, or in any way made less biased. This user flipped from sweetness to hostility, legal threats, and odd theories with me whilst being all sweetness to davewild and another administrator who's name escapes me. Although findingtruths doesn't seem to have edited this article he/she has begged davewild to do so as can be seen on his talk page. user:findingtruths appears to have been created just to bias this one page and as such is a disruptive influence and should be banned. There is plenty of information on the talk page of this article, and the talk pages of the various people involved. Unixtastic (talk) 15:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Unixtastic all conversations are available on your talk page (talk) and mine (talk) for anyone to view. I have not attempted to prevent the article from being corrected, deleted or in any way made less biased. If you disagree, please provide an example. Your contributions have included removing relevant press articles (The Daily Telegraph page written by acclaimed fashion journalist Phong Luu is not something anyone can put up themselves as you alleged), removing words that could make the brand seem better than you think it is but which have been used in several secondary sources, adding a complaints thread from an internet forum above the official website even after you have been told that forums are not to be cited and appealing for the page to be deleted. It has been pointed out to you here (talk) by one of the other senior admins that I am allowed to contribute to the talk pages.

As a side note,Unixtastic has now not only made continuous unsubstantiated complaints about my company, he has also made continuous unsubstantiated complaints about my behaviour and about me. Is there anything I can do to address this? Thanks findingtruths (talk) 18.07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a formal process available at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct but it nearly always generates more heat than light and I strongly recommend that you ignore it, disengage, and walk away. Other users can see what is going on, in particular that you have declared your interest. JohnCD (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you I will. findingtruths (talk) 19.49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear findingtruths, I think you will find that my contributions turned an uncited advert into something approaching a Wikipedia article. Your contributions have been obstructive not constructive. You got caught out lying a number of times most blatantly when you denied the original poster of this article Parafianowicz works for Belen Echandia. She claims she does at http://uk.linkedin.com/in/lydiaparafianowicz and at the bottom of am image page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Belen_Echandia_Logo.jpg where she says 'Permission = Jackie Cawthra is a colleague of mine.' So far you have tried threatening me with libel, complaining to administrators, and telling bizarre stories about how I've been complaining about this company all over the Internet. I found a complaint link in a google search and posted it in the talk page as evidence the article needed less bias. I didn't include it in the article as it's not a notable source. If you want to find that link search google for 'Belen Echandia quality', it's the very top link. Yes I added some external links to real customer feedback, I'm sorry that wikipedia doesn't consider customer feedback notable as it's the best way to get information on any company. If you want to complain that I've been unfair to you go ahead but you have nothing to complain about. With a bit of luck you will get yourself banned instead. I remain skeptical about your claims to own Belen Echandia. Anyone can claim they own anything but if you really are a company owner you would take more care about your public image as well as have little free time to spend on wikipedia. Unixtastic (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Findingtruths, you are strongly advised not to reply to this. Unixtastic, you also should drop it, disengage and walk away. Wikipedia is not a place for you to pursue your feud. See WP:NPA: comment on content, not on contributors. Take this as a formal warning: if you continue baiting findingtruths, you may be blocked from editing. JohnCD (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

PsychClone

Resolved

 – PsychClone has been blocked indefinitely for disruption, and AfD votes struck. Goodvac (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

PsychClone (talk · contribs) seems like an obvious troll/sockpuppet who is here to make a point with disruptive edits and edit summaries, especially votes at AfD. The same day the account was created (November 10), user created talk page with the edit summary "Poems for people with dyslexia". User proceeded to vote at AfDs about actors. [58] [59] It's always the same boilerplate message about "a beg for money message from Jimbo Wales", "East Coast user/admin bias", and accusations of participants being "armchair critics who have no personal knowledge or have actually seen [the actor] perform". Coupled with this, my conviction is that this user should be indefinitely blocked for disruption/trolling and checkusered. Goodvac (talk) 10:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Definitely a troll. Considering that its first edit outside own user space was to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James L. Perry (actor), and comparing its standard rant with this, I would say that it's a sockpuppet of Intergalaxy (talk · contribs). The latter is username-blocked but has previously operated another sock, Jameslperry (talk · contribs), who managed to get blocked for making legal threats. Favonian (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This is clearly not a new editor. In the interest of transparency, PsychClone voted his cut and paste delete rationale on an AfD I started. However, each edit this user has made has been an attempt at disruption. This gem from their user page essentially says that if you post to his talk page, you're stupid. As there is obviously no desire to contribute productively in a collaborative environment, and as their edits are purposely meant to provoke others, can he not just be blocked to prevent further disruption? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Definitely a troll. Makes claims that I have a conflict of interest in making the pages I do, even though almost all of them are Tony nominated actors. JDDJS (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Quack Agree that this is not a new editor fumbling around, but a troll who should be blocked, Checkuser not particularly needed. Jclemens (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked PsychClone indefinitely. Should their AfD "contributions" be struck? Favonian (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh they're contributions all right...yes, strike them as block evasion per WP:DUCK. N419BH 20:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Another person who refuses to understand that one's First Amendment rights does not readily apply here and that "free encyclopedia" means free content, not free beer. That or straight trolling; in either case, I'd strike them all. –MuZemike 20:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

216.165.95.66

IP editor 216.165.95.66 was given a block on 3 November 2010 by User:Materialscientist (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week. On 14 November this IP editor made a disruptive edit [60] to the article on Up the Long Ladder. Please could consideration be given to renewing the block, preferably for a longer period.

In fairness, it should be said that the same IP was used for what looks like a helpful edit [61] to the article on Lenny Bruce on 10 November. So the situation is not completely clear cut.

Perhaps the right thing to do would be to allow account creation, but disallow edits by un-logged in users on this IP address.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how this is disruptive. Goodvac (talk) 10:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

...please tell me you're joking. rdfox 76 (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

That specific doesn't look like unambiguous vandalism at first glance, but it does look like someone adding school notes from a book on 19th or 20th century history ("page 5, railroad ownership"), in the middle of an entirely unrelated article about an episode of a sci-fi television series. The IP address appears to be a school/university, incidentally. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Not joking. Adding school notes into an article is unconstructive but cannot be considered disruptive, unless it's a pattern from this user. Goodvac (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason I reported it was that the user's talk page revealed a history of unhelpful edits, and the user had just returned from a block. If you think the best thing to do is wait and see whether the user makes more unhelpful edits, I do not mind.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

99.30.226.124

Requesting a block on 99.30.226.124. He has ignored consensus on Xubuntu and his discussions on User_talk:MilborneOne#Request and Talk:Xubuntu are threatening and abusive. Greenman (talk) 11:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Please notify this editor ({{subst:ANI-notice}}).  Sandstein  11:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I concure that a block is warranted at this point in time. This IP editor has been consistently abusive [62] , insulting [63] (he admits to being intentionally insulting [64]) has issued several threats [65], [66] and edit warred [67] [68], [69], [70], [71], [72] despite being asked to stop. He also claims a block will not stop his campaign as he uses dynamic IP addresses. [73]. - Ahunt (talk) 14:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for disruptive editing. Further issues can probably be solved with semi-protection. TNXMan 16:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Big White Tiger LLC Legal Settlement

Whilst on vandal patrol, I noticed 68.50.189.231 removing content ([74][75][76][77]) from the Big White Tiger LLC page and the company's logo. I reverted and warned twice, and then the removals continued ([78][79][80]) with the edit summary:

• "This company has gone out of business. As the owners of this company, we need to remove all references so that we can comply with legal settlement."

The user then left a note on my talk page saying they had to be removed to comply with a legal settlement, and politely asked for assistance. I replied asking for more information, but was told that details couldn't be shared because of the legal settlement. I'm unsure what to do and wether the content removal is permitted. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I have none of the background, but from what I have seen, it sounds like there was some sort of dispute involving use of the corporate name or logo, and as a resolution of the dispute, they have agreed to stop using it. If that is the case (I don't know, I'm just surmising), the papers typically require them to use "best efforts" to prevent others from using the logo. Needless to say, however, Wikipedia is edited by its contributors collectively, so whether the material remains is not ultimately in their control, so seeking its deletion probably constitutes best efforts even if the content is not ultimately deleted.

Having said that, the entire article seems of borderline notability in any event, especially if the company is now out of business after only a couple of years. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I have proposed deletion as the article does not seem to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). It looks like the article was created by a single purpose account. Most likely, based on my six years experperience here, not any specific knowledge of this case, the creator was somehow affiliated with the company. It is thus logical that they would attempt to undo that which they had done. Jehochman ^Talk 16:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI, (and I don't mean to be rude), six years of experience isn't needed, you could have looked at the diff above ([81]) :) Acather96 (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Pickup artist editing by 201.116.29.243

201.116.29.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Looks like another attempt to continue the past feuding on Wikipedia on topics related to notable pickup artists and their companies. Problems include spamming [82] [83] [84], removal of Seduction Community info [85] [86] [87] [88] [89], using Wikipedia as a battleground [90] [91] [92] [93]. --Ronz (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

There's been some cleanup by editors, but piecemeal. --Ronz (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Guideline changed with no consensus

Recently on List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II I made a chane that was reverted despite WP:IMOS FLAGS entitling me to do it and then just seconds after I brought it up, O Fenian took it upon himself alone to change the guideline without any discussed consensus. As far as i'm aware you can't change guideline articles without there being wide discussion and consensus. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Jehochman

Why is Jehochman (talk · contribs) removing relevant discussion from talk pages while warning that anyone that restores the discussion will be reported for "sanctions"? [94], [95].

A quick look at recent user history reveals that the user assumes bad faith, and has a habit of removing discussion. Additionally, he recently removed an explanation by an IP whose posts were deleted with the rude edit summary of "I find this offensive".

Perhaps Jehochman should be sanctioned for his actions in violation of WP:TPO.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You raise interesting questions. Have you asked Jehochman if he has interesting answers?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No. He made it clear that he would bring the issue to ANI to seek sanctions.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reason you couldn't just ask Je yourself? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I have interacted with him in the past and find him to be unreasonable.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I interact with a lot of unreasonable people every day, but WP:DR still tells me that the first step is to talk to the other editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The user in question planned to go to this noticeboard to request that I be "sanctioned". Any discussion would not be constructive and would probably be blanked as in the case of the IP.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman has every right to remove soapboxing on his own talk page especially when it has an offensive heading. The other material he removed was soapboxing by IPs and he said he would apply for page protection. It seems to be the correct approach. TFD (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment): The bottom three diffs should have been removed, as for the other two, that is a little different, but that is a case of an admin acting BOLDly. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The material removed was not soapboxing. It was ongoing discussion about the lead of waterboarding.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that users there are running afoul of the article probation set there (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding#Remedies). –MuZemike 22:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion did not run afoul of article probation, and Jehochman did not claim this in his rationale.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) This is about the fringe POV-pushers who insist that simulated drowning (i.e. "waterboarding") isn't torture again, isn't it? What a drag. The preponderence of legal views, views from moral philosophers, a common-sense understanding of what the word "torture" means, etc... make it torture. I've been involved in Wikipedia for over two years now, and this attempt at bowdlerization has been going on for at least this long. It's a time sink, is a discouragement to competent editors and an encouragement to incompetent ones. Yes, by all means lets get after jehochman for trying to stop the idiocy. Plus ca change.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read what the discussion was about.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No, let's instead have another long discussion at ANI, speculating about what Je is doing, instead of just asking him before coming to ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman was clearly acting within the proviso of the ArbCom remedy - whether he explicitly mentioned the remedy is irrelevant. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Was part of the remedy to remove constructive discussion?--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The remedy makes the decision of what is constructive discussion be up to the intervening admin. Here Jehochman even accepts that someone might disagree with his judgment and revert in whic case he will take it to ANI to see whether consensus agrees with the person who reverts. My guess is that noone reverted because they knew consensus here wouldn't be in their favour. Jehochman could have topic banned the editors on the spot but didn't - that is good judgement.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I reverted his decision because I was currently discussing something.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Then what is the problem? That he hasn't sought sanctions against you yet?·Maunus·ƛ· 22:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

William- Maybe you're forgetting to assume good faith yourself? Access Denied – talk to me 22:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of constructive discussion is not appropriate. There's no good faith removal of constructive discussion.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)xN Jehochman acted appropriately - this is an encyclopedia, not a free-for-all discussion forum. Can we close this yet? - 2/0 (cont.) 22:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read what the discussion was about before making judgments.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You have still failed in your responsibility to take it up with him first. You may be correct in your assumption that he would ignore you but your case is, in my judgment, flawed because you came here first. Make the attempt next time.JodyB _talk 22:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No. We all have a responsibility to abide by WP:TPO.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Wm, here's how you do it: "Je, I was wondering why you deleted these conversations; (diffs supplied) I thought they were active, productive discussions. Could you fill me in?" We all have an obligation to AGF. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It is very disheartening to find that the community feels it is alright for someone to remove constructive discussion that someone else is involved in, without their consent and to criticize someone for bringing it to the community's attention. My only responsibility was to notify the individual of this thread, and I did that.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary it is dishearteneing that editors think they can use ANI as a way of avoiding to resolve disputes themselves. Especially when they are not willing to accept what consensus is about whether a wrong was even committed.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) What is disheartening is your failure to AGF and follow DR; you assume Je is doing something wrong, without asking. Now, if you ask him, and the answer is unsatisfactory, then you can take the ANI community's time on the matter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Please address the issue at hand. This is a recurring issue, and constructive discussion would have been appreciated rather than hostility.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who restores the discussion will be waterboarded. Donald Rumsfeld (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2002 (UTC)