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

Review of unblock request and discussion of possible community ban

Unresolved

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/CCI

This conversation concerns the handling of a prolific editor who has been found to have infringed copyright in multiple articles. Discussion is ongoing about the potential handling of this review, which will involved tens of thousands of articles. Participation in brainstorming solutions or joining in clean-up would be much appreciated. Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

WT:BISE and User:Triton Rocker: indef block review request

Unresolved

Entire section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/BISE to reduce space on the ANI page and to centralize discussion. Please do not add a timestamp until this reaches the top of the ANI page. –MuZemike

Murder of Meredith Kercher, again, uninvolved admins please

Unresolved

Entire section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Murder of Meredith Kercher to save space on this page and to centralize discussion. Please do not add a timestamp until this reaches the top of the ANI page. –MuZemike

• Update. Since the accused blocked editor is still working on his draft in response please do not add a timestamp until this matter is solved so that uninvolved admins who are not aware of the sub page can still see it and comment. --TMCk (talk)

• Update 2: PhanuelB has finaly submitted his response. Admins and editor are ask to please take a fresh look at it so a decission can be reached. Thanks,--TMCk (talk)

Block review: User:Wikid77, violation of topic ban

Unresolved

Please see RegentsPark's talk's talkpage.

Resolved

 – The editor has acknowledged his error below and has listed specific steps in trying to be good and an indefinite topic ban over a one day confusion (or not) seems excessive and doesn't have wide enough community support below. Wikid77 is advised to demonstrably follow through with his plan specified below.--RegentsPark (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Good morning, Following Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive618#User:Wikid77 canvassing, Wikid77 (talk · contribs) was placed on a three months topic ban enacted on June 11. He acknowledged that his ban would expire on the 11th as recently as 6 September, here.

Yet disappointingly, he returns to Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher on 9 September here, with several additional edits both on that talk page but also on User talk:Amalthea#Expanding MoMK - which by the way is again phrased in a quite WP:CANVASSing tone regarding the editorial body he disagrees with.

After the latest spat over the Kercher / Knox topic here, the talk page suddenly saw a quieting down with several of the newest editors accepting to try discussing edits rather than attacking others. I fail to see how Wikid77's intervention, 72 hours early, are anything but yet another attempt to disrupt the page, an attempt to game the system like they have done in the past.

Also worth considering are his edits to User talk:PhanuelB (currently indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing himself) while under his topic ban.

As a consequence, I have blocked Wikid77 for a month for a continuation of their same behaviour, but believe at this stage that a wider admin review here would be beneficial. Thank you. MLauba ^(Talk) 08:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Unlike many of the other editors on the MoMK page, Wikid77 is a positive for Wikipedia in his editing outside this arena. Whilst I don't disagree with MLauba's block I wonder if a more productive option for the encyclopedia as a whole is an indefinite topic ban for Wikid77 on any edits related to Kercher, Knox, and the trial. We could then have the benefit of his excellent work elsewhere without the negative of his problematic editing at MoMK. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'd agree to that, provided it is also made clear that the kind of coaching as performed on User talk:PhanuelB is explicitly covered by the topic ban. If there's a consensus to enact such a ban, I'd support lifting the block immediately. MLauba ^(Talk) 11:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• - I think thats a good idea and would be a long term solution. Off2riorob (talk) 11:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Agree. Separate the productive Wikid77 from the unproductive one by placing an indef topic ban, clearly phrased to be applied to "all" MoMK related discussions construed widely (including user talkpages). The previous ban description did just that but Wikid77 seemly didn't understand it that way as shown in some posts made during his topic ban [1], [[2], [3], [4].

As a side note, my well meant advise to Wikid's last post at Phanuel's talkpage was also fruitless.TMCk (talk) 13:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Another note: The block itself was warranted as a direct result of the ban "Consider this your final warning on these types of behaviors. Continuation of these types of disruption or violation of this topic-ban will lead to immediate blocking (probably indef, based on your extensive prior block history)".TMCk (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with everything above. I won't speculate what Wikid77's motivation for breaking his fast at five minutes to sunset might have been, but it is clearly not a matter of his being simply mistaken about the length of the ban. He also came back with the gesture of starting multiple discussions on precisely the same general topic as had led to the ban. Admins have recently been taking action in relation to this article by locking the page and acting quickly aginst disruption, and it has been demonstrated that this has been effective in calming the talkpage. So, the block by MLauba is in keeping with this and is appropriate. However, to keep it in place would go against WP:PUNISH, since it prevents Wikid77 from editing in areas where he is productive. A topic ban would therefore be more suitable. --FormerIP (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with the block. By my count, and correct me if I'm wrong, User: Wikid77 returned on the 91st day of block. Technically he met the burden of a generic 3 mos block. As to his contributions since returning, one may not like or agree with what he has to say but he has not attacked anyone or been arbitrarily disruptive. On the contrary, he's sparked legitimate discussion as to whether a spin off article is necessary or desirable. Tjholme (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)— Tjholme (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Where in the topic ban did it say "90 days"? Unless there's been a sudden change to the calendar that I didn't know about, 3 months from June 11 is September 11. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The user in question did some creative OR and concluded that "3 months" equated to "90 days". I think if it were actually "90 days", the ban would have said "90 days". "3 months" would typically be understood to be the same day and time of the month as the original posting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note: I informed the admin who imposed the original topic ban.TMCk (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

As banning admin, I chose to state "3 months" because that's a standard length for blocks ("Expiry" in Special:Block). I personally wouldn't have cared if at moments beyond the 90-day mark (before 3-month mark) user suddenly started making constructive edits to the banned areas, demonstrating that he had learned from this experience and had rectified the behavior that led to the ban (good-faith assumption that problem was solved without getting nit-picky wikilawyering either way). Given that's obviously not the case and he violated the ban as he stated he understood it, I definitely support remedies for violating the ban. And for ongoing problems regardless of that, I also support topic-ban or other methods that prevent it. DMacks (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. "3 Mos" might reasonably be interpreted as the same date 3 calendar months hence, or as 90 calendar days. The difference is trivial and to use it as a basis for further punishment is grossly unfair when he's obeyed the spirit of his previous sentence. If he was blocked how was he able to edit ? To knit pick the difference and ban an editor that represents a dissenting view is a low blow and beneath our otherwise accomplished and experienced admins. Tjholme (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)— Tjholme (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

How whould you explain then this: "He acknowledged that his ban would expire on the 11th as recently as 6 September, here." posted at the very top of the thread?TMCk (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've declined his unblock request as it was basically wiki-lawyering about the details instead of addressing the real issue. I've recommended that they voluntarily agree to permanent topic ban as suggested above. Dickering about whether 90 days=3 months (hint:it doesn't) is not really a productive way to move forward here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

@Tjholme: He was not blocked, he was topic banned, he could have violated it at any time during the ban period. To my mind this is really less about the ban term and more about the meaning of having been topic banned. It's usually intended as a "final warning" that any further similar problems will lead to long or even indefinite blocking. Did the user get the message sent by the topic ban or didn't they? That is the real question. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

And, in case anyone missed it, there is this diff, [5] look in the middle of the post and you will see Wikid's own words: "Because of my topic ban, I am not allowed to discuss the specifics of the AK case (until Sept. 11)." So it's pretty clear that four days ago he did in fact understand it to mean literally three months, and only after he was blocked did it suddenly become 90 days. So, that whole line of argument is a lie on his part. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I've just advised them again to accept a indefinite topic ban, if they can agree to that I support an unblock. If they don't they should remain blocked, and an indefinite topic ban should be imposed. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support Beeblebrox's proposal and add the following: If they agree to an indef topic ban widely construed (including user talkpages) in a reasonable time the block should be replaced with the proposed topic ban. Should he keep on wiki-lawyering after the fact that they where caught in a lie the block should stay in place and the indef topic ban applied.TMCk (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

(A note for those not familiar with the editor: Each but one minor block he received for breach of 3-rr was directly related to the MoMK case incl. one instance of sockpuppetry.TMCk (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC))

• Disclaimer, when it comes to the MoMK article, I must admit I'm rather involved; however, I support Beeblebrox's proposal (and, by the way, I endorse Wikid77's block). Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 23:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Support the proposal for an indefinite topic ban — after a list of blocks and a three-month topic ban, enough is now quite enough. So persistent, stiff and uncompromising is Wikid77's attitude to editing at this topic that, almost immediately after returning to the talk page, he enquires to an administrator, "I would like to expand the MoMK article, but have met much resistance from a few editors at the talk-page. Should this be a new issue at ANI or should we try a mediation, etc.?" I agree that it must also be impressed on him that effective "coaching" of editors involved at the topic is forbidden. During the course of his determinate ban, Wikid77 has posted at the talk page of (the now indefinite-blocked) PhanuelB (talk · contribs) on multiple occasions, and often in a snide, biting and caustic tone with regard to users with whom he has had disagreements in the past (see this section of his current user talk page). A couple of examples:

• "Try to remember all the kind readers here, and avoid hostile people who probably tortured animals when they were younger, and know what to expect from them."
• "Think about it: normal, balanced minds do not censor an article in that fashion. There has been some major psychological distortion driving these people. Are any of them paid to suppress evidence? It is just not the way normal people act."

In this edit, following a long, educative diatribe, he ends, "Again, feel free to ignore these opinions, and plan your actions depending on your own ideas about the situation." Yes, of course. SuperMarioMan 00:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• (e/c) Update from his latest post to his talkpage [6]. Well, I guess that does it. Wikid still thinks he is in the right like he thought so when he shifted the blame for his sockpuppetry to the admins (just check his talkpage from the time of the SPI case) and even demands now a retraction of the proofed claim of his lying w/o responding to the clear cut proof. Amazing. Really amazing. As they had their chance but chose to go on with their wiki lawyering I see no other solution as to go ahead with what was proposed: Indef topic ban (clearly defined to prevent any kind of further wikilawyering). Keeping the one month block in place for now until the user starts seeing what they did wrong and acknowledges it here or in case this thread is already archived by that time in a new ANI thread with a pointer to this one. If anyone has a better more reasonable solution that would work please state it now. Unfortunately we're again at a point where enough is enough.TMCk (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support both indef topic ban and current block. To acknowledge the "rule", then purposefully break it and claim ignorance is both wikilawyering and childishness of the umpteenth degree. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Whatever is done, we must be mindful that Wikid77 has brought up issues about an Amanda Knox article. There is currently unequal treatment given to this proposed article yet afforded to other people involved in a murder. This can discourage editors because they can think "why this article I am working on is picked on while Murderer X is not". Let's try to be nice to Wikid77 and everyone try to work together. Wikid77, this is not blind support for you but a message to all to try to be cooperative. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Please forward your well meant advise to Wikid and also please read this and Wikid's talkpage and try to refute allegations made against him (you'll have a hard time doing so).TMCk (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That's right: for instance, I would appreciate clarification on how his comments on PhanuelB's talk page (see above support comment) could be considered examples of "being nice". SuperMarioMan 18:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed draft of topic ban

With plenty of support as backup I started a draft regarding the wording of a the proposed topic ban for Wikid77 below. Feel free to alter it as you see fit.TMCk (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

"Wikid77 is hereby topic banned from editing and discussion of the Murder of Meredith Kercher case and any articles in relation to this case including on their own and other editors talkpages. Any violation of this ban should be followed by removing their editing privileges for no less than one month. This restrictions don't apply to any ANI, Arbcom or similar threads if the editor is mentioned as a party in such or prevent the editor to file an appeal. Furthermore, the currently applied one month block for violation of their previous topic ban should remain in place but can and should be only lifted for the good of WP if the editor refrains from further wiki-lawyering and acknowledges that thay understand their wrongdoing so we don't lose an otherwise valuable editor on different topics."

Overall, this sounds good to me, although the part about "any related cases" may be a touch ambiguous. "Cases" as in murder cases exclusively, or crime topics in general? The wording for the three-month ban was "other similar crime/criminal topics". Meanwhile, Black Kite describes the prospective ban as pertaining to "Kercher-related subjects" — the Kercher topic is confined (as far as I can tell) to the one article (with redirects such as Amanda Knox, etc.), although other articles like Douglas Preston definitely seem "Kercher-related" (see section). After all, we could do without more coat-racking, which has befallen previous versions of articles such as Delayed grief. However, this is just a thought — "any related cases" may be specific enough for others. SuperMarioMan 18:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Reflecting your concern I've replaced it with: "...and any articles in relation to this case...". Would that be better in your opinion?TMCk (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Appendum: I think that makes it clear that they're still allowed to edit let's say the Monster of Florence case as long as their edits are not in relation to the MoMK case.TMCk (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd phrase this topic ban as follows: "Wikid77 is hereby topic banned from all edits regarding the Murder of Meredith Kercher broadly construed [...]", so as to make it very clear that he cannot deal with the MoMk case anywhere on Wikipedia; not in mainspace, not in project space or on users' talk pages, with the exception you list. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 00:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

i.e. So, in effect, "banned from making edits describing, discussing, or otherwise relating to the Murder of Meredith Kercher case, across all Wikipedia namespaces". I'd support Salvio's recommendation of "broadly construed" — basically, not a single word more about the case, or the user risks immediate blocking. SuperMarioMan 09:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone besides me get the feeling we're going through a lot of work, and the editor in question isn't doing crap? I'm all for AGF, but we started building a bridge from one side, and not only is he dillydallying, but he's building a harbour instead of the other end of the bridge. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, me, and that feeling started with the editor's comments in response to him being block for sockpuppetry where he (and the following will sound familiar) didn't acknowledge any wrong doing from his side but rather bluntly blamed several admins at the time. That feeling is ongoing BTW.TMCk (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:IDHT at its brilliant best, unfortunately, and Wikid's replies on this matter, practically without exception, fail to address the problems at hand. SuperMarioMan 17:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, as I mentioned before.TMCk (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Please, could someone compose a topic ban proposal based on the above so we can reach consensus and ask an uninvolved admin to enact it? I don't mind the minor work doing it myself but I think it would be better if it comes from someone else than me as I drafted the first one. Just keep it as clear as possible so there can be "no misunderstanding" and wiki lawyering about the restriction from the accused side.TMCk (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"Wikid77 is hereby banned indefinitely from making any edits that describe, discuss, or otherwise relate to the Murder of Meredith Kercher case — broadly construed — across all namespaces on Wikipedia, including on his own and on other users' talk pages. Any violation of this topic ban should be followed by the removal of this user's editing privileges for no less than one month. These restrictions do not apply to discussions at ANI, ArbCom or similar venues if this user is mentioned as an involved party in such discussions, so that he may file an appeal. Furthermore, the current one-month block for violation of this user's previous topic ban should remain in place. However, the block can and should be lifted for the general good of Wikipedia if this user agrees to refrain from further wiki-lawyering and acknowledges that he understands his wrongdoing, so that Wikipedia does not suffer the detriment of losing a user who has made valuable contributions to other topics."

In response to your invitation, how does this sound? SuperMarioMan 19:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Very good phrased. Seeing that the editor still didn't address nor acknowledge any wrong doing (see below) I think we should go ahead and propose this sanction with your wording at ANI/I so an uninvolved admin can go over it and enact what seemed to be the final consensus.TMCk (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Fresh activity from Wikid77 on his talk page: [7] SuperMarioMan 19:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

A lot of hot air is venting. Still puts the blame on everyone but himself so should we really pay attention to it? As an example, The last "heated" conversation was month ago (if you want to call them heated after he compared editors to pics). Since then I only placed well meant advises and called him out on the established 3 month lie (like plenty of others did).TMCk (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW, I even advised him to keep it low at PhanulB's talkpage on September 6, telling him he was posting on the edge of his topic ban and should rather wait the little time that was remaining. If I meant to harm him I would have posted to ANI long time before when he started posting on Phanuel's page but I was holding back and assumed good faith, hoping he (Wikid77) would a) wait till his ban expires and b) not start of where he left of before. Unfortunately he did just the opposite as everyone knows.TMCk (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention Wikid's accusations against some other fellow editors who don't share his view.TMCk (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree. Some of his remarks at Phanuel's talk page have been unbelievably sour, but since MLauba noticed them and did not see the need to take further administrative action, I decided just to leave a note for Wikid. As is (regrettably) not unusual in the case of this user, an attempt was made to pass the burden of guilt onto me. Reading through that diff that I have just linked, isn't it ironic how the observation "Considering the advice he's been giving you here, though, skirting along the edges of his topic ban, I'd be pessimistic about his chances" is now, in light of Wikid's return, a prophecy fulfilled? SuperMarioMan 21:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't get worked up. I've just placed a request for any uninvolved admin with time on hand (or maybe s/he is already up to date, depends on the acting admin) to go over the issue and enact the proposed ban (final draft by SuperMarioMan). Let's see if the admin who will act on this agrees after reading through the history.TMCk (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, believe me, I'm not really getting "worked up". It's just that I word things quite strongly on occasion. Let's see how it goes from here; any additional endorsement would be welcome. SuperMarioMan 22:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Ready for admin intervention

• Could an uninvolved admin with some time on hand please take a look at this and enact the latest proposed topic ban as composed in agreement with other editors by SuperMarioMan above at the "Proposed draft on topic ban" section as long as they're being in agreement that there is a) consensus and b) enough evidence at this page and the accused editor's talkpage so we can wrap this up? Thanks for your attention.TMCk (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

A ban for someone coming back on day 91, saying it should have been day 92, is disingenuous (see Wikipedia: Gaming the System). Was the user aware of the day he/she was permitted to return? If not, then it is clearly not a willful violation, but an honest mistake. The careful return at day 91 says the user was acting in good faith and politely waiting until after three sets of 30 days, making 90 days, the common allotment for a "month" if otherwise not specified. A ban in this case signals ulterior motives such as not wanting the user to comment on a particular topic rather than a deserved consequence. If the ban is not revoked, attention should be given to the matter since it was not a willfull violation but an honest misunderstanding under unclear terms of the temporary ban. Admins should act with discretion, not over-step their administering role, into a role of policing. Good faith says to next time clarify the exact terms of a ban so the user is not at risk of having a differing idea that could result in disasterous outcomes. This is not in the spirit of the Wikipedia intentions of topic bans. Perk10 (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)— Perk10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Again, you didn't address his own acknowlagement he left on Phanuels talkpage: ""Because of my topic ban, I am not allowed to discuss the specifics of the AK case (until Sept. 11),...".TMCk (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I also queried Wikid's early return with him: [8]. He didn't respond to this, but carried on editing the talkpage. If it really was the case that he was unaware that he was breaching his ban then, as you suggest, it would be appropriate for admins to consider whether a ban or further block would be proportionate. However, I don't think the idea is plausible. --FormerIP (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems out of proportion. Did Wikid77 say the reason for returning Sept. 10? Perk10 (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Perk10— Perk10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please get you facts straight. He didn't return on the 10th. If you read the start of this thread you'll see that he returned on the 9th, having himself acknowledged that he couldn't return until the 11th. David Biddulph (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Casual error, thinking the return date was Sept. 11 and then counting and then thinking it was actually Sept. 10, according to 90 days... There could be many reasons. A permanent ban seems out of proportion to the infraction. As well, why wasn't it 90 days anyway? Perk10 (talk) 17:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)— Perk10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

What severely punishable reason could there be for returning on the 91st day instead of the 92nd day? Perk10 (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Perk10— Perk10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

As a difference of 24 hours, it seems like a technicality that shouldn't used as leeway for the axe. Apologies on both sides would suffice. Perk10 (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Perk10— Perk10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Uhm, even if he would have "recounted" as you said his first post to MoMK was not on September 10 but on September 9. Now that he is unbanned you can stop making far fetched excuses for him, don't you think so?TMCk (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

September 10th, as allowed by a count, since it would be inclusive of September 9th. It was the principle I was getting at. My points were valid (reasons, not "far-fetched excuses") and in fact, were supported by the reasons given in "Resolved" notice above, which I saw when I logged in just now. Perk10 (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Perk10— Perk10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Uhm, I hate to brake it to you but September 9 and September 10 are still two different days. For easy understanding an example: We don't start 9/11 memorial services on 9/10. If you do so you're off one day and maybe you should check from which century your calender is from. If it is from the "flat earth" period it might not be up to date.TMCk (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Bans of set duration are bans of set duration. I think that it would be plain to most people (although my confidence in that assertion is regrettably starting to wane) that a period of three months, commencing on 11th June, would be seen to end on 11th September. If Wikid was so unsure of the end date, for what reason did he choose not to ask an administrator for clarification? And as to the "spirit of the Wikipedia intentions on topic bans", what is the point of setting a limit to the restriction if only to permit violations to be swept under the carpet? Violations are violations. To draw a comparison, I wouldn't move my New Year's Day forward two days to 30th December, and know of no one else who would, mainly because the dates are completely different. SuperMarioMan 20:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore it is difficult to see this, from 6 September as anything other than a flouting of the topic ban. It's a post to an editor who contributes on this article only and is full of advice to that editor on wording; it mentions no names but there are many thinly veiled references to the topic in question. ("So, the text can mention that a judge concluded someone was stealing a computer, but not call that person a "burglar" in a Wikipedia article", "avoid negative text that says someone is a drug dealer, a petty thief, or a burglar", etc.)  pablo 21:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

There is and cannot be any doubt whatsoever that he was talking about Guede just w/o naming him. That's what I meant when I "caught him" discussing the case on Phanuel's talkpage way before the ban expired. Diffs can be easily found above.TMCk (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Replies by Wikid77

Reply from User:Wikid77

copied from User_talk:Wikid77

I, User:Wikid77, have been accused of improper canvassing; however, I did not inform User:Amalthea of a new discussion, such as an AfD, but rather asked advice about expanding the text of an article, which is not a vio of WP:CANVAS. I would like to know when my topic ban from June 11 ends. In the timing of the 90-day window, I had expected my topic ban to end by September 10, and thus suggested, "Because of my topic ban, I am not allowed to discuss the specifics of the AK case (until Sept. 11)". However, as I have been informed, the topic ban would remain in effect until 8:50am that day, and even "Sept. 11" was not an all-clear date but rather Sept. 12 would allow discussion all day. I did not make a "lie" in noting Sept. 11. As for the 90-day mark, let this "child" explain why 90 days is used as a span of 3 months:

• If a 3-month ban begins on November 30, does it end on "February 30"? and is that considered March 2 or February 28 at 23:59?
• If a 1-month ban begins on August 31, does it end on "September 31"?
• If a 2-month ban begins on December 31, does it end on "February 31"?
• Also consider a 1-month ban on January 29, January 30, January 31, March 31, May 31, August 31, October 31, or related 3-month bans, etc.

In my "young" generation, these problems of "February 30" have been avoided for decades by treating the months as 30-day intervals. For that reason, I suggest actually specifying a topic ban as 30-day or 90-day, or 92-day to the same hour, rather than assume everyone knows exactly what other day is expected. As to content, my topic ban prohibited deletion-discussions (AfD) or article-creation about Kercher topics or related, plus other pages (essays), and was based on the notion that I had violated WP:CANVAS by contacting 2 people in favor of a new article, but only 1 person opposing that article, after all others had been notified in an article talk-page earlier the same day. I was informed, weeks later, that I could have protested that topic ban (2 vs. 1 is hardly "vote-stacking"), but I did not object for its duration. I intend to work to update the various policies to be more specific, so that these issues are less likely to occur with other editors.
I would like to help craft compromise solutions in the Meredith Kercher article, because editors favoring more text from notable American investigators are continually hostile to other editors (with insults from both sides stored in talk-page archives), and the whole situation needs larger actions, such as whole sections changed, rather than 1-phrase changes. In some cases, perhaps adding 4 sentences would end the disputes. There are currently factual errors trapped within the locked article, but I have been topic-banned, so I had to just cringe at seeing those errors set in stone and numerous talk-page insults bot-archived (yikes!). The updates could be performed in a more structured manner, using a separate subpage as designed by admin User:Huntster for the numerous changes to Convert (Template_talk:Convert/updates). By stacking changes in a subpage, it is easier to compare the text of the various changes, as well as indicate placement of images and tables and warn the update-admin of how the updated article should appear. Anyway, if the opposing parties can be allowed a few sentences, each, then perhaps all the 20-30 disgruntled users will become more civil. Telling them absolutely "NO" has led to very bad opinions about the Wikipedia project, with the result that the article has been locked to seal in current factual errors with numerous talk-page insults. Hence, these people actively complain about the whole situation, rather than make progress, or feel confident to update the related legal articles, such as where is "Legal system of Italy" and expect the pageviews of that to be high. I waited 3 months, well 91 days, to see if the article disputes would fix themselves, and they certainly haven't. The power of those 20-30 editors can be harnessed if we allow a few sentences and ask them to expand related articles. Does this seem workable? -Wikid77 (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• And there you are, addressing anything (related to issues you have with the article) but the cause of you being here like the title says and plenty of comments being made since this thread started, here and on your own talkpage. You're not helping your cause if you keep going on like this and I'm not the first and won't be the last saying that.TMCk (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

And still wikilawyering.TMCk (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikid77 reply on proposed topic ban

— copied from User talk:Wikid77. SuperMarioMan 20:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Drafting a permanent topic-ban against me (User:Wikid77) seems premature. The banning-admin (DMacks) has stated the concern is not the 90-day mark, but rather the claims of repeating past behavior (as improper canvasing). In this new case, I have explained how I did NOT inform User:Amalthea of a new discussion, such as an AfD, but rather asked advice about expanding the text of an article (this talk-page edit), which is not a vio of WP:CANVAS. User:DMacks preferred that I had focused on constructive edits, which is the case with starting discussion about expanding MoMK to note more details of the murder (this edit), including the missing 300 euros (~$420), 2 credit cards and house keys which were never found. Because both articles "Amanda Knox" and MoMK are locked, I could not actually incorporate constructive edits directly, so it had to be a tedious request for long-term update. That gives the illusion that I was just talking, not focused on updating articles. Other editors here need to admit to past confrontations with me:

• User:The_Magnificent_Clean-keeper (TMCk) has had several heated debates with me about MoMK, so his rush to craft a permanent topic-ban against me could be viewed as revenge for opposing his prior ideas. Then when he went WP:NPA by claiming I was wikilawyering, that added a personal attack, compounded with past hostilities against me. Clearly, his approach is getting him nowhere, and he needs to remove himself from this discussion, so we can focus on the facts, not repeated personal attacks.
• User:Salvio_giuliano (Mr. Salvio) has argued against me multiple times in the past, about MoMK and Amanda Knox. He might still hold a grudge when I reminded him that 2 reliable sources which stated that Amanda Knox "wept with grief" (days after her friend Meredith was murdered) are not an invalid synthesis WP:SYNTH claiming Knox showed delayed signs of grief ("sobbing uncontrollably") in Talk:Delayed grief. Clearly, his comments here cannot be viewed as uninvolved, so he needs to remove himself from this discussion, so we can focus on the facts, not past conflicts.
• User:Beeblebrox had sharply cautioned me not to support a "poetic" user who wanted to write articles with a poetic flair, who had struggled to keep text simplified for newer readers. Now, he insists I have made a "lie" about 90 days, but I explained the problem of "November-30 to February-30" (etc.) as why a 90-day period avoids uncertainty, such as the 92-day period of my topic ban. His violation of WP:NPA and refusal to redact the comment of "lie" would clearly indicate he is not ready to follow Wikipedia procedures here. I explained 90-day, yet he would not assume good faith.

I could go more TLDR (search for those usernames posting to me, in History of User_talk:Wikid77), but long story short, there are no grounds to continue this block or a topic-ban against me: the banning-admin stated the "90-day mark" was not an issue with him, and the claims of improper canvassing have been refuted. Also, I have offered to help craft compromise solutions with the 20-30 disgruntled editors in the MoMK article, so my intentions to work with others have been quite clear. I have NO desire to topic-ban the other editors who have had prior disagreements with me, but their participation in this ANI incident is not helping to resolve disputes at the MoMK article. Also, they need to totally stop saying "lie" or "wikilawyering" or "childish" or other personal attacks; instead focus on the facts, not stereotyping. Their level of hostility against me (now personal attacks) needs to be resolved in some other manner, I am not sure how, but not by hounding me with a topic ban. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That's what the banning admin actually said:

The banning admin posted the following further above:"As banning admin, I chose to state "3 months" because that's a standard length for blocks ("Expiry" in Special:Block). I personally wouldn't have cared if at moments beyond the 90-day mark (before 3-month mark) user suddenly started making constructive edits to the banned areas, demonstrating that he had learned from this experience and had rectified the behavior that led to the ban (good-faith assumption that problem was solved without getting nit-picky wikilawyering either way). Given that's obviously not the case and he violated the ban as he stated he understood it, I definitely support remedies for violating the ban. And for ongoing problems regardless of that, I also support topic-ban or other methods that prevent it. DMacks (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)"

TMCk (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Erm, well... not sure how much there is to be said here... SuperMarioMan 20:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing to be said that wasn't said already here or on his talkpage.Quite a bummer but that's what it came down to.TMCk (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to a topic ban. I have independently verified that Wikid77"s analysis of the situation and of what came before is essentially correct. One gets the very strong impression that it is not Wikid's behavior that is at issue but his views. There is a very disturbing pattern here, one in which fair argument and principled disagreements somehow, through a process of magical thinking, get alchemized into a real grievance. The proponents of the ban seem intent on chewing Wikid up bureaucratically precisely because they cannot defeat him intellectually. He bests them rather regularly in argument.PietroLegno (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)— PietroLegno (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If Wikid beats "proponents of the ban" intellectually, why has he been unable to come up with a plausible explanation for why he violated his topic ban by returning to the talk page early? What makes his continuing refusal to answer even more pointless is the fact that he himself acknowledged that the restriction would end on 11th September in a previous post. SuperMarioMan 22:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I can’t see that Wikid77 has done anything to justify a topic ban and the hostility against him. I hope there is no personal vendetta because of the views he has expressed. Some have alluded to a perceived coalition that is attempting to stifle dissent by banning/blocking editors who express opinions they don’t agree with. I hope that is not the case; but if an indefinite topic ban is imposed, it will surely be used as ammunition to support the theory. I think dropping this (perceived) persecution of Wikid77 (and PhanuelB also) would go a long way toward restoring good faith and easing tensions.Kermugin (talk) 01:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)— Kermugin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Sorry I'm a bit late. Out of town. I'll keep it short. I oppose the ban on Wikid77. The bans are flying way too free and easy around here as of late. Thats like the immediate go-to response for any offense, it seems. I'm all for blocking griefers, people that threaten or attack or vandalize.. but Wikid77 (and PhanuelB) add informed voices and valid arguments to the ongoing debates. Tjholme (talk) 04:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC) — Tjholme (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 08:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC) (UTC).

If Wikipedia:Censorship is the only argument that you can deploy here to refute the case, I would argue that it is hardly worth responding at all. SuperMarioMan 08:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• I had honestly forgotten about our prior incident. User:B9 hummingbird hovering was indef blocked after a full month long RFC and a prolonged discussion at ANI, and you were actually trying to encourage him to keep trying at it as I recall, despite the fact the community spoke loud and clear that his edits were not acceptable. I was not considering this incident in any way however in my recent dealings with you. Even if I had remembered that you were that user, it has nothing to do with the current situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

New comment from Wikid77

Copied from Wikid77's talkpage, as requested. TFOWR 12:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• I apologize for posting 1 or 2 days before the end date of the prior topic ban, because based on past hostile reactions, I should have asked an admin for the exact date when in doubt about anything in the hostile area.

• I acknowledge how "Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher" has become a severe hornets nest of intense disputes, so I will refrain from posting several major suggestions there at one time.

• I will work to change policies to recommend topic-ban periods be given as 30-day or 90-day to avoid "November 30 to February 30" types of end-date confusion.

• I will work to further adjust policy WP:CANVAS to indicate how asking one admin for advice is NOT improper canvassing. There seems to be a perception that asking another admin is an attempt to force the outcome of a decision.

• I will work to create an essay "Anticipating hostile reactions" which warns to ask admins about uncertain details, or wait an extra day (or 2) when a deadline date could be argued as a technicality. Also, I will note the way many hostile feelings have remained, beyond 4-9 months after a dispute, and how people should expect severely hostile reactions far greater than might seem normal: repressed rage does not abate simply because several months have passed, so beware a repeat of hostilities which might require intervention by admins and disruption of their work. What might seem a minor detail could become a major point of controversy, during hostile times.
• I will work on adjusting the WP "mandatory sentencing" so that ending a topic ban 1 day early is met with a relatively strong warning, then a meted block, to avoid the perception of allowing a feeding frenzy of capricious sanctions to be triggered by a 1-day early violation.
• I feel that these numerous actions are needed, because people are expecting large, specific changes to be made, on my part, as an implicit outcome of ANI discussions.

I am a slow mindreader, so if there are other detailed questions or issues to address, then please reply on my talk-page, if too much detail here. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikid, this seems to mainly consist of you pointing out that the problem is with other editors and with faulty WP policy. It doesn't give me confidence that you will be less disruptive in future - in fact it just makes me concerned that you will spread the drama to various policy talkpages. Writing an essay about the "repressed rage" and hostility of admins you have come into contact with does not seem like a constructive thing to do, IMO.

I note your offer to begin only one discussion at a time, though, which would be a minor improvement. --FormerIP (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Concerning FormerIP's first part of his post here: He indeed did that before. Check his sub-pages.TMCk (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I mean no disrespect to anyone else here, but I must say that now that I have looked back over a good deal of material my admiration for Wikid has grown immeasurably. He/she is among a handful of the most extraordinarily productive, creative, and thoughtful users I have come across and exactly the sort of experienced hand we need to sort out the disaster of the Sollecito-Knox-Kercher article. Wikid's "sin," in the presence instance, was to come back a day or so early. This is a venial failing and due in large measure to genuine ambiguity in the rules. Now, through a process of illogical platform bargaining his opponents suggest a topic ban on the basis of vague charges no independent observers would find remotely plausible. One suspects that Wikid's real sin is being possessed of an acute intelligence and a willingness to say that the current article falls far short of what it could be. I was fairly idealistic about Wikipedia when I first joined, but that dewy optimism quickly passed. Newcomers are treated with incredible hostility. Bureaucratic intrigue rather than rational argument holds sway. If you can't beat someone in fair argument then you find a flimsy pretext for banning them. Wikipedia should be so much better than this.PietroLegno (talk) 10:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think your repeated statements that Wikid regularly "bests", or "beats" his "opponents" in an argument are either accurate or constructive.
Anyone possessed of such a mighty intellect would realise that 3 months from June 11 is not 6 September.^diff
Perhaps you, (and I, and any other involved editors here) would do best to leave independent observers to decide what they do, and do not, find plausible.  pablo 11:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"Pietro Legno" is Italian for "Peter Wood". Whether that connects in any way with this SPA's agenda, I couldn't say. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Conclude this

Would appreciate another neutral admin looking at this and either enacting or refusing a topic ban. In the above discussion there are ten established editors agreeing that a topic ban is useful, whereas in the against camp are six editors, one of which is Wikid77 and four others are recently created SPA accounts that only edit on the Kercher article and share Wikid77's POV on this article. In addition, Wikid77 is now even wikilawyering on the fact as to whether the article should describe Knox and Sollecito as guilty of the crime, despite the fact that this was the result of the trial. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikid77 has now removed his ANI replies from his talk page, following another inevitable declined unblock request. Since Wikid indicates no sign of confessing to his past wrongdoing, and obstinately refuses to participate constructively, the conclusion would seem to be that the one-month block remain in effect. Whatever reasoned objections there have been to the separate matter of the indefinite topic ban, I have seen no trace. This is a regrettable result, but sadly only to be predicted, having been borne out of the unacceptable conduct of a user on one topic which has resulted in repeated withdrawals of his ability to edit at Wikipedia, regardless of the topic. SuperMarioMan 18:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Revision: Content of struck-through sentence is of no consequence, I was thinking about something else. SuperMarioMan 22:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Mario, I don't think Wikid has archived the discussions on his talkpage - perhaps I'm misunderstanding something.

It would be good if a new admin would wrap this up one way or another, though. I think a topic ban would be preferable to the current block, since there are other areas of WP where Wikid is an asset. Alternatively, unblock has been turned down three times now, so maybe this discussion (nominally a block review) should be closed as unnecessary and I'll see you back here in a month. --FormerIP (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the wording that I drafted, based for the most part on TMCk's input, earlier in this discussion:

Wikid77 (talk · contribs) is hereby banned indefinitely from making any edits that describe, discuss, or otherwise relate to the Murder of Meredith Kercher case — broadly construed — across all namespaces on Wikipedia, including on his own and on other users' talk pages. Any violation of this topic ban should be followed by the removal of this user's editing privileges for no less than one month. These restrictions do not apply to discussions at ANI, ArbCom or similar venues if this user is mentioned as an involved party in such discussions, so that he may file an appeal. Furthermore, the current one-month block for violation of this user's previous topic ban should remain in place. However, the block can and should be lifted for the general good of Wikipedia if this user agrees to refrain from further wiki-lawyering and acknowledges that he understands his wrongdoing, so that Wikipedia does not suffer the detriment of losing a user who has made valuable contributions to other topics.

Does anyone else have comments/criticisms to make? SuperMarioMan 22:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment (since, apparently, my talk page is only a sad bylane of ANI after all, I guess I should comment here) I don't agree with this topic ban. From what I can see, the genesis of the topic ban is a violation of a previous timed topic ban at the tail end of that ban. That violation has lead to a general movement (a very textually voluble movement in certain parts) for an indef topic ban. I think that is excessive. If a single error is sufficiently disruptive to lead to an idef topic ban, then perhaps wikid77 should have been indef banned 3 months ago. Justice, one hopes, is always better when tempered with mercy. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Reply' - He violated his topic ban then refused to acknowledge that he did anything wrong in subsequent statements. Mercy is always better when tempered with common sense. He's shown no sign that he won't continue to be disruptive in the topic area, much the opposite. He has been productive in other areas of Wikipedia and can continue to do so in the future after his current block expires. -- Atama頭 16:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that if a topic ban is put in place, then the block can be removed and Wikid can start to be productive straight away. If indef is considered excessive, then someone throw a dice, but mercy what is is needed for the sake of the article, not for the editor. This isn't a technical breach. Wikid came back to dramatically pick up where he left off and he came back early knowing that it would cause drama and headaches for the administrators who have been watching the page. --FormerIP (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and catch up sometimes tomorrow if time permits me.TMCk (talk) 01:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Sep 16 comment from Wikid77

Copied from Wikid77's talkpage, as requested.  7  06:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Response from Wikid77: Due to my current edit-block, I have had trouble replying (by admin-edit) at specific points of this ANI discussion. I want to further clarify:

• I did apologize for posting 1 or 2 days before the end date of the prior topic ban, because based on past hostile reactions, I should have asked an admin for the exact date when in doubt about anything in the hostile area.

• I acknowledge how "Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher" has grown into a larger mix of intense disputes, so I will refrain from posting several major suggestions there at one time.

• Some people have imagined that I have watched the numerous MoMK disputes every day during the past 3 months, but I have been distracted by other issues for the summer, so I was unaware of many arguments among 20 new people at Talk:MoMK.

• I further pledge to reduce participation at Talk:MoMK, because finally, I understand the level of disputes which had occurred while I was gone, and now I can see how I returned "like gangbusters" in the middle of disputes I did not realize were hotly contested.

• When people said "disruptive" I was thinking disruptive-editing such as edit-wars, but finally admin User:MLauba used the word "inflamed" so I realize that I was seen as raising the level of disputes and hostility which was brewing while I was gone.

• Please remember that I have been blocked or topic-banned for 5.5 months of the past 9 months, so I have had only limited contact with MoMK editors. However, I finally understand that Talk:MoMK was already contentious enough without much input from me, so I will reduce participation due to the current conflicts between the 20-30 people already there.

• I will try to spend more time reading over those 5.5 months of Talk:MoMK while I was gone, before offering more suggestions. Again, I apologize that I came back so strong and caused alarm along with the current disputes ongoing there, which raised stress for the admins who are juggling the current disputes.

I hope you will realize how I was unaware of the numerous severe issues brewing while I was gone, but now I understand why so many people here seem filled with rage, as though I were "adding fuel to the fire" of those prior hostilities, by posting major new suggestions among numerous ongoing disputes. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wikid. I guess it will depend on what editors think generally, but I am glad to see you trying to view things from the other perspective and am becoming more inclined to give you (yet) another chance.

A thing that I'm really concerned about it is your mission to create a content fork. This is not mainly because of the content fork itself, but because one of your strategies seems to be adding copious amounts of detail and material to the existing article in the hope that it will eventually become too large and will need to be split. Let's not get into whether that is or isn't something you really have done in the past, though. Would you be willing to agree to be conservative in future in adding to the article or proposing/supporting additions to the article? I think most editors agree that the article is too long and detailed at present and would like to find a way to cut it down. This is difficult because of the NPOV disputes, but it becomes even more difficult if there is an editor involved with the opposite gameplan.

In terms of whether a fork should be created, I don't think anything significant has changed since the last AfD. Maybe at some point in the future (eg following the current appeal) somthing will change, and it might not then be unreasonable to try for the fork again, but I'd ask you to just pursue that through the normal channels when the time comes.

I don't mean to just make you jump through additional hoops. If you are sincere in what you say above, then I'd say that an additional reassurance on that specific point is not too much to ask.

Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell mass fully protecting templates

HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) is fully protecting hundreds of templates using WP:Twinkle. He site their high usage (over 500 pages) as the sole reason to fully protect the templates, even if the templates were alrxeady semi-protected. However, most of these templates are WikiProject banners, such as {{WikiProject Anime and manga}}, which should not be fully protected. But, HJ Mitchell continued with the mass full protections without regards to whether the templates really should to be fully protected. —Farix (t | c) 03:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Personally, I think that templates should not be full protected unless they have been the subject of repeated vandalism or they are used as anti-vandal templates (user warnings, etc.) and I would hope that most of the recent full-protetctions can be dropped completely, or at least made semi-protections, so we can continue to have the open editing access that wikipedia purports to allow. -- Avi (talk) 03:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• All the pages on this list have been protected, about two thirds by me. The first 2,000 are mostly full protection, the rest are semi. I've repeatedly offered TheFarix the opportunity to list any pages he would like unprotecting, but they were too busy lambasting me because I don't have the time or patience to manually check and protect about 5,000 pages. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Over 99% of our editors are not admins (only 1600 or so are) and by full protecting them, you have prevented the majority of the templates from being maintained by those currently doing so. Semi-protection should be more than enough. -- Avi (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • If you don't have time to check all 5,000 pages to see if they actually need full-protection, then you shouldn't be automatically fully protecting those pages in the first place. And yes, I've requested that you restore all WikiProject banners to their previous protection levels. —Farix (t | c) 03:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
    • IMO, at least Page 3 of the report- and maybe page 2- should be re-ran as semi-protection. 1,300 is gracious plenty to justify semi-protection, but not enough for full, the way I think of things. Page 1, on the other hand, had some mighty high numbers of transclusions. Courcelles 03:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Even so, Courcelles, without any evidence of abuse, we should not be disenfranchising 99% (hundreds of thousands) of our core editors, at least that is my opinion. Unless there is reason to believe that these would be targets (like the sockpuppet templates). -- Avi (talk) 03:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
    • HJ, with all respect to you, that was probably not the smartest move you've made. Plenty of those pages should only be semi-protected as other non-admins may have legitimate reasons to edit them.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 04:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree this shouldn't have been undertaken without a direct rationale. Even semi-protection is questionable. We should allow liberal access, respond to problems when they occur, and IMO restore liberality when the crisis has passed. Persistent targets need to be hardened, not all potential targets. Franamax (talk) 04:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I do not see any reason why the WikiProject templates should be protected. Most of them are highly edited by project members and fully protecting them is going to make editing them very difficult for us. Is it possible to undo your fully-protect for all of the WikiProject templates? Furthermore, couldn't you notify us about your intentions of mass protecting those pages? Bejinhan talks 04:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• As one of those users who maintain literally hundreds of templates and is not an admin, I must say those changes are a real pain in the butt. The protection levels for those templates was fine where it was with any vandalism, which rarely occurred, being reverted almost immediately after being initiated. I request that you undo these changes promptly. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Generally, doing any sort of high-volume operation like that without prior consensus is poor judgment. Some arbcom decisions describe it as "fait accompli" and it's been associated with massive disruption. HJ, please stop and discuss. 67.119.12.29 (talk) 05:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why it was necessary to lock out thousands of editors here. These protections should be undone. This is a wiki. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Hearing McBride go "you shouldn't have made that arbitrary action for the protection of [insert content type here], this is an open and collaborative wiki" is a bit rich, but for once I agree with him. This sort of thing is silly, particularly without prior consensus. Ironholds (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment): A group of admins should go through (so this isn't thrown back at HJ) and see which templates are getting heavy vandalism. Those templates should be fully protected while all other should receive semi-protection. I see no problem with semi-protection for the big well-used templates. Most of those 99% have been auto-confirmed, so they can edit a semi-protected template, it is the rest of that 99% that we should be worried about, causing trouble and such. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Off with his head. Killiondude (talk) 05:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• So that's what happened. I just un-did HJ's protection of {{wine}} because I'm involved in that project, so I happened to notice. I know admins shouldn't be reverting each other, but I couldn't see any rationale for protecting this. I agree, these templates shouldn't be fully protected, largely. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Hah, just noticed the "I didn't have time" comment. Is there anyone on this site with more free time than HJ Mitchell? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree, poor judgement from the admin involved, but I don't think there's a need for snide comments. Strange Passerby (talk) 05:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Allow me to add myself to the "metoos" for this being a Bad Idea (tm). In general, whenever the justification for commiting some action badly is "I didn't have the time or the patience [to do it right]" it was probably a bad idea from the getgo. These mass protections should be undone; reprotection should be taken on a case-by-case basis and under a more deliberative method than was used here. --Jayron32 06:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • If you want to have well-used templates out in the open, you undo them and you do them on a "case-by-case basis and under a more deliberative method"....all 3,000+ of them. What HJ did, might have been a little hasty, but was a damned good idea. Preemptive protection against vandalism that might happen. Now, if we could just get this on AN and ANI, we might be somewhere. Well-used templates should be semi-protected and the heavily vandalized ones should be fully-protected. Really, there is nothing wrong here and only causes problems for vandals and newbies. Are we now in the business of making the vandals "jobs" easier? Come on. Everyone put down the pitchforks and torches, get off of Keith Olbermann's World's Worst Person in the World hotline and realize that maybe, just maybe, this will make everyone's life a just a little easier, since we won't have to watch all these well-used templates anymore. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• There is a delicate balance. Protecting a template to prevent vandalism is all well and good, but if it keeps good-faith editors from contributing constructively, it can do more harm that good. I do, however, agree that HJ was acting in good faith, albeit a little hastily, and that the pitchforks and torches should be set down. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 06:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Just undo the big batch of protections that HJ just did.[9] Any templates that were already protected before that operation started can stay protected. Any templates that got along without protection up til then, don't need protection unless something actually happens. 67.119.12.29 (talk) 06:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• That won't be easy, unless someone has a tool that can feed that log page into a script. Otherwise even with Twinkle it's basically gonna have to be manual for each one. However, if HJ was using a custom-made page himself, he might still have it available. —Soap— 14:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Then how about this. Unprotect all of the templates listed at Wikipedia:Database reports/Unprotected templates with many transclusions, then review each template individually to see if it really need any level of protection or wait until a specific request for protection is made WP:RFPP. This is what should have been done in the first place. —Farix (t | c) 14:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Is that where HJ Mitchell got his lists from? If so I suppose it would be easy to mass un-protect all of them without worrying, since we can guarantee they were all unprotected to begin with. Still I hope HJ shows up so we can discuss this. Maybe we could talk about reducing them all to semi-protection at least, without reducing them to unprotected. —Soap— 15:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Better to unprotect the lot and then to conditionally re-protect. Semiprotection is not and never has been required as a matter of course for templates, the majority of which are never vandalised. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Feeding the log page into a script to get a list isn't a big deal, but a script doing actual unprotections would have to be run by an admin. Chris makes a good point that we apparently already know that the templates were all previously unprotected. That avoids the complication of figuring out which ones were unprotected and which were semi-protected. 67.119.12.29 (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• To Neutralhomer: I never said he wasn't acting in his own perception of what was in the best interest of Wikipedia. He obviously believed he was doing good. I think this was an example of poor execution and not poor intent. He used a semi-automated process to change the protection status of these templates rapidly, he could use the same process to change it back. I never said he meant Wikipedia ill, nor did I imply in any way that he's a bad person or an admin. We all screw up. It would be nice if, when you respond to my comments, that you refrain from the hyperbole you yourself tell me to refrain from, and instead consider that, even in criticism, it is possible to hold one in high regards. Normally, I do not think HJMitchell is a bad admin, or has really, in my memory, ever done anything wrong. This was an exception to that. He screwed up (in my sole opinion). It wasn't a major screw-up, its fixable, so all I was asking him to do was to reconsider his screw-up and fix it. I have no problem, in principle, with protecting templates which are highly visible and not likely to be edited often. However, his method cast too large a net and was too indiscriminate. I stand by that. --Jayron32 06:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm out of my depth since I've never used TW, but "he could use the same process to change it back" might not be so easy. Protecting meant clicking a button, but reverting the protection means figuring out the template's previous protection state (unprotected, semi-protected, or maybe other possibilities), which could be slower if it involves examining the page log. The most practical way to undo this may be with a bot :(. 67.119.12.29 (talk) 07:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• OK, perhaps I was a little biting in my post, I am sorry for that. The templates that are fully protected should be looked at (by any admin), take those, go through them and see if there is heavy vandalism. If so, leave as is, couldn't hurt, some are already. If not, knock it down to semi-protect. That would only affect newbies, anons, and vandals. It wouldn't hurt people who are already auto-confirmed. If the anons have a problem, they can get an account (easily) and hit the magic edit number or ask an admin. Newbies would need to hit that same magic number. Vandals, hey, they are just screwed in this deal. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Some of us IP editors don't want accounts, feel that we are better and happier editors without accounts than we would be with them, feel that we contribute usefully without accounts, and would quit editing rather than enroll accounts.if we were not able to keep editing this way. 67.119.12.29 (talk) 07:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Then I guess you are stuck with "ask an admin"...not like anyone is taking anything I am suggesting seriously, so you have nothing to worry about. But seriously, quit than get a free account? Slightly rash, but whatever. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
      • You are suggesting an editor quit, simply for the reason they prefer to edit anonymously? And you suggest you're not being taken seriouly? What a coincidence. If you want to change policy, please take it up on a policy discussion page - don't push it one editor at a time. Franamax (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• I agree about HJ doing this in good faith, I myself have leaped before looking on WP and caused all types of disruptions. The best thing would have been to discuss this before moving ahead with the plan. Live and learn. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

  That's difficult to buy from someone who admits they don't have time to do it properly.--Crossmr (talk) 06:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• HJ, please curb your enthusiasm and stop showing up at as a subject of ANI discussion for a while, OK? Every admin who tries to get anything done gets hauled here eventually, but most of us try not to make a habit of it. BOLD is good policy for article improvement, less good for dealing with issues that affect things Wikipedia-wide. Jclemens (talk) 06:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Undo all of these protections, The logic used to get the list for the mass protections was Wikipedia_talk:Database_reports#Unprotected_Templates_by_Number_of_Transclusions, Which only takes into account the number of uses and nothing else, This is a wiki we shouldn't be locking things down because people might vandalism them (otherwise BLPS would of been done a long time ago). Wikipedia:HRT is only a guideline and not policy which was used as the reasons for the mass protections. And most of the ones I randomly checked when looking at the list were talk page related templates which imho should hardly ever be protected under this sense unless a clear pattern of vandalism is shown to of occur. Peachey88 ^{(T · C)} 07:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Expanding on Jclemens: the whole idea of BOLD is that on-wiki actions are supposedly easy to revert. The old notion of "adminship is no big deal" was that the same easy revertibility extended to admin actions (a page protected in error could be unprotected with a mouse click, etc). That goes out the window when any kind of automation is involved, and bad edits/actions happen faster than other editors can undo them. Doing anything like that without prior discussion is almost always a big error in judgment, and users who have done ill-advised automated ops and had the additional bad judgment to defend them afterwards have caused some of the worst and stupidest drama on Wikipedia. (Think of the date delinking arbitration, the Betacommand saga, etc). HJ Mitchell makes a remorseful edit summary, which is a good sign.[10] I think the main thing for any automation user to remember before being BOLD is to ask him/herself, "how easy is it going to be for other people to undo this?". If your action can't be undone in a few clicks, BOLD does not apply, so discuss it with someone else first. 67.119.12.29 (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Fully agree that a major sticking point here is that the task was at least semi-automated. I think any editor or admin planning any sort of mass automation task should definitely seek consensus for it first. Strange Passerby (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• A good editor (acting in good faith) that edited quite boldly... and made a "controversial" decision. HJ: please make it right, brother ;> Doc9871 (talk) 08:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment as someone who has campaigned on this page against protection I don't really think this is all bad. With articles protection should be kept to a minimum so that IP users can edit without an account and so that new users can edit the pages without having to jump through lots of hoops and bureaucracy to get 'confirmed' status. Without new editors Wikipedia will die as it always needs new editors and without lots of unprotected pages you have a chicken and egg situation

Whereas its really a bit different for templates as they are far less obvious and only an editor who has made lots of edits will even know how to edit them - its more than reasonable to expect 10 article space edits and 4 days before people are able to edit templates, and with the very high transclusion templates there is very little reason why edits would need to be made regularly and they probably should be discussed so requiring an admin to edit them isn't that much of a burden.

I would suggest that all the WikiProject templates and other talk page only templates are reduced to Semi-protection as they could well want to be edited by project members who may not be admins and the results of "damage" are pretty slight (that is unless the number of transclusions is so high that changes would noticeably degrade database performance). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't reflect community consensus on the protection policy. IP editors should not be casually discarded from any area of the project; there are plenty of editors who contribute regularly from IPs, who should not be considered subordinate to users with accounts. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• I shall add my disgruntled voice to this discussion. A number of templates have popped up on my watchlist as now being fully protected, none of which have a history of vandalism or IMO a sufficient number of transclusions to warrant such action. As a non-admin who helps to maintain these templates, this action helps neither me nor the wiki. PC78 (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Is there any possibility of getting the indiscriminately applied protections rolled back since HJ Mitchell doesn't seem willing to fix his mistake? If HJ Mitchell still thinks that some of these templates should remain fully protection, then he should propose which specific templates needs the protection. If he still doesn't have "time or patience" to review the templates individually, then he should leave it to others to determine which templates should be fully protected. —Farix (t | c) 13:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

  We can ask him that when he logs in this morning. I don't think it's possible to do a mass reversion of his protections because there is no page that lists them all. He may have started with a handmade list, though, rather than just the database report, in which case he could reverse his changes as easily as he made them, either in full or in part. —Soap— 13:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to expect that any WikiProject or other template that anyone cares about can be requested at WP:RFPP for a protection change if that seems sensible. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Since this mass protection appears to have affected thousands of templates, I don't see how that is reasonable; potentially it would mean a mass increase to the workload at WP:RFPP. A proper case should be made for the change in protection that has just been made to a template, not for reversing it. PC78 (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• These protections were a bad idea for the reasons elucidated already, but a more grave failure of judgement was for a clearly inexperienced administrator to take mass action of this type without discussing it first. Like Jclemens above, I am becoming increasingly concerned with HJ Mitchell's judgement and would hope that once these protections are undone, HJ reflect and consider discussing or consulting more experienced editors before taking borderline or controversial actions as an administrator in future. Skomorokh 14:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• This was a terrible idea (albeit one made with the best of intentions). The entire lot should be reverted to their previous level of protection; templatespace gets few enough eyes as it is without making it even harder to contribute to it. Frankly, the protection policy should never have been worded to suggest that preemptive protection of high-transclusion templates was necessary, especially taking an absurdly low "high transclusion" figure like 500 pages. {{infobox football biography 2}} has north of 30,000 transclusions, much of them BLPs, and has never even needed semiprotection. HJ's offer to unprotect on demand is not an acceptable compromise, what with it having generated a large amount of unnecessary work for admins and template editors alike. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Semi-protection is more than enough in most of the cases. Maybe it's confusing but I don't consider 500 transclusions as "many" for WikiProject banners but maybe they are for maintaince tags. Fully protections must be undone to save us from an increasing list if edit requests and to enable non-admins to work with them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Related issue (kind of...)

Resolved

 – Crazy-dancing can't see any issues, either, so I think we're done here. Thanks for your help, Taelus. TFOWR 12:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I've reduced the protection level for a number of templates, per requests at HJ's talk page. From this, an issue has arisen - see User_talk:Crazy-dancing#Template:Infobox_UK_school. In summary, there was a problem with a template (since fixed) that was preventing images from showing that pages did link to them. This is obviously problematic for non-free images, since "orphans" get deleted. This is solved on a page-by-page, image-by-image basis by editing the page (I made a null edit to a page, and the image then correctly lost its "nothing links here" state). However... there are a huge number of pages/images affected. What's the best way to resolve this? Could an AWB person do some AWB magic? Is there an easier/better way? Hay-ulp! TFOWR 11:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you link an example page with this issue on it, that has not yet been fixed? ---Taelus (Talk) 11:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I had a quick look - the first 10 or so images I checked all seem OK now, so it's possible this is, in fact, a non-issue (in which case - apologies for the noise). However, I've asked Crazy-dancing if they're aware of any images still being problematic. TFOWR 11:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I took a sample of about 30-40 pages from several pages of the "what links here" set, and couldn't find the issue. The software might have caught up and solved the issue already. ---Taelus (Talk) 11:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Protection policy

One thing which might have led to this was this change to Wikipedia:protection policy, which added the words "Highly visible templates or templates in use on many pages are usually protected". This rather off-handed summary doesn't actually reflect consensus or indeed general practice, and is so vague in general that it can be taken to justify pretty much anything. The policy should be edited to reflect actual consensus, which is not that templates are routinely taken to semi or even full protection once they hit a certain level of visibility or transclusion count. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolution

If folks wouldn't mind putting the pitchforks down for a moment or two, I propose that I run another batch protection, reducing everything on the second page of the database report (from the oldid of the version I ran the first batch from) to semi. I believe I set semi for the batches I ran on all subsequent pages. Many of the pages on the first page were already fully protected, so I propose to reduce all wikiproject banners to semi and deal with the remaining few hundred as people request them on my talk page or WP:RFUP. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Strongly agree with the need to put pitchforks down ;-) That said, I'm not entirely comfortable with simply shifting all the fully protected templates to semi-protection. Thumperward makes a valid point that some templates have survived quite happily with no protection, and I agree with the need not to disenfranchise IP (and, to a lesser extent, non-autoconfirmed) editors. Is there an easy way to restore the original protection levels? If not, I'm happy to volunteer to reset part of the list manually. TFOWR 15:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Edited to link to Thumperward's comment re: IP disenfranchisement. TFOWR 15:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see that its plausible that new editors are going to want to edit templates. If they have 500 transclusions the changes should be discussed first. I think HJ Mitchell is right here. I'm really unconvinced that IP editors will want to legitimately jump in and edit high visibility templates, but that if they were vandalised the potential for damage is obviously much larger than a normal article. Its far more important to keep the number of articles protected as low as possible rather than the number of templates. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You'd be surprised ;-) I think you're probably right with respect to non-auto-confirmed editors - usually they tend to be genuinely brand new editors. IPs, however, vary enormously. I know one IP who routinely does new-page patrolling, and is probably better versed in CSD-policy than many of us. IPs like this should not, in my opinion, be prevented from editing anywhere unless absolutely necessary. TFOWR 17:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Semi-protection doesn't just hit new users: it also affects any IP editors. IP editors are not second-class citizens, and should be welcome to edit anywhere they like on the project (with very limited exceptions). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I know that I edit templates from time to time, though I can't say for sure if I've edited any on the list that just got protected. And the idea of having to start a discussion before fixing a spelling error in a template is silly. Finally, a lot of these high-transclusion templates don't appear in any articles at all. They're things like wikiproject banners, so they only appear in talk and project pages. 67.119.12.29 (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

In theory, you have a point, Eraserhead1. However, many of the above templates were fully UNprotected until HJ started his mass-protecting. There is no reason any page should be protected without some history or reasonable expectation of vandalism, so the full protection should be completely repealed for those templates, in my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Take the template Infobox football biography 2 which was only recently semi-protected, it has nearly 24000 transclusions, but less than 30 watchers. In contrast, say, Wayne Rooney alone, has nearly 450 watchers. It seems pretty likely that templates with less transclusions will have even less watchers and thus vandalism to high visibility templates will get picked up much slower than ordinary articles (if it passes recent changes patrollers), as well as causing more damage. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Footybio2 has 24,000 transclusions and in two years it was disrupted by an IP once. I hadn't even noticed it was semi-protected: I'll be looking to get that removed once this dies down. Everyone repeat after me: "preemptive protection is not necessary". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's acceptable. It amounts to an implied change to the protection policy without the consensus to do so. The whole thing should be reverted to the state it was in prior to this unilateral action. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me restate my proposal again. All affected templates should either be restored to their previous protection levels before having their protection levels indiscriminately changed, or are completely unprotected with editors requesting higher levels of protection for individual templates at WP:RFPP. Preferably the former option should be done. This is actually in compliance with protection policy as no level of protection is a required and should only be applied on a case by case bases. —Farix (t | c) 18:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with TheFarix. Per BOLD,REVERT,DISCUSS the next thing to do after the mistaken BOLD is revert, which means set all the protections to what they were before. Don't make them semi-protected unless they were semi-protected before the operation started. Any new protection proposals can be discussed after that. 67.119.12.29 (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

[Reverted per WP:CIVIL ] . - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The "fait accompli" that you are supporting is much worse. And your comments shows a complete lack of good faith towards IP editors. —Farix (t | c) 18:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The main thing you're doing is giving the vandals ideas. These templates hadn't had any vandalism problems which is why they weren't protected in the first place. You misunderstand protection and the whole wiki process in your desire to protect when a problem hasn't actually occurred. Do you really think a vandal knowledgeable enough to mess with templates can't get autoconfirmed first? That's just silly. 67.119.12.29 (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you genuinely not aware that IP editors are not all vandals? IP editors add most of the content to Wikipedia. They also spend far less time wittering on ANI when they could be improving articles. You want to reassess your approach to how you treat IPs. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 19:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, to reply to NeutralHomer, above, I don't really think your comment is constructive. The IP editor you're making a veiled reference to as a "vandal" actually has quite a few positive contributions, if you'd check. The only IP editors we notice routinely are the vandals, but if you look a little harder, you'll see a lot of them making a lot of positive contributions. We shouldn't lock IP editors (or any editors) out of any page without good cause. That's one of our core principles. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is trivial to be well-behaved enough to get autoconfirmed if someone wanted to mess with templates. Where semiprotection is best used is to prevent the drive-by vandalism from IPs, schools, etc. If that has not happened on these templates, then there is no reason for semi, let alone full, protection, IMO. -- Avi (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time seeing a need to ever semi-protect a template, since anyone who'd vandalize one can figure out autoconfirmation. I can grudgingly accept that some templates have to be full protected. 67.119.12.29 (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Why don't you just revert them all to their previous state? It seems rather clear from the comments above that you shouldn't have done this without getting consensus first. Undo your changes, then propose a new course of action. Franamax (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, HJ Mitchell has not interest in undoing his mistake. I suggest another editor to rollback the templates back to their previous protection states. —Farix (t | c) 21:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I can write a script for this if an admin (preferably with bot operation experience) wants to run it. I'd much rather that HJ self-reverted though, and he might just be offline. He is online and editing[11] so he is apparently ignoring his obligation to be responsive to these comments. If that's the case, I'd thought this was a WP:TROUT situation, but am beginning to think his edit summary comment about desysopping[12] might point to the necessary course of action. If that happens, it should be accompanied by removal of access to Twinkle and other automation. 67.119.12.29 (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That seems more than a little over the top... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Under WP:Admin#Accountability I think HJ's continued participation in this thread should not be considered optional. I haven't had any contact with him before this that I can remember, so per your comment I'll defer to others' judgment about whether these problems have occurred often enough to call for more drastic remedies than trouting. 67.119.12.29 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC).

I left a trout.[13] 67.119.12.29 (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to edit a template right now request it individually on either WP:RUP or HJ Mitchell's talk page. Otherwise give him a couple of days and stop hounding him. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Why a couple of days? He last edited just a few minutes ago.[14] All I've asked is that he post something here about his intentions towards this matter. 67.119.12.29 (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Because HJ Mitchell isn't a robot, and humans sometimes need a bit of time to think about their actions. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The only HJ Mitchell should be doing is figuring out how best to undo the mess he made now that the consensus is clear about the issue. But that doesn't prevent other admins from stepping to help or even start the ball rolling. —Farix (t | c) 22:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not a mess and I don't know what all the fuss is about. I did the same thing that happens every day at RfPP, I just did it en masse. Now, if you just want your share of drama and a scapegoat, then don't let me interrupt you, but I have better things to do. If you want to talk about unprotecting these templates or reverting them to their previous status, then I will cooperate as far as I can be of use. In theory, any admin with Twinkle enabled can do what I did and undo it just as easily. I could unprotect all the templates on the database report, but the major disadvantage I found when I did it was that it completed flooded the recent changes, not to mention the protection log. Also, I don't know of a way to revert these pages to the their previous protection status. For the flooding reasons, I believe it would be a good idea if a list of these can be produced as 67.119... seems to be suggesting (apologies if I'm misinterpreting) and a bot configured to re-apply the previous settings. The use of a bot would prevent recent changes flooding and it could be configured to do it quicker or slower than Twinkle depending on what's desired. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

(Slightly Off-Topic) @ 67.119... (and 67.122...) - Please see this. Are these all you? No edit overlap, and all Pacific Bell in the Bay Area. Why not register here: you don't have to, of course. You know a ton about WP, fo' sho'... Doc9871 (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed off-topic and in my opinion constitutes hounding, but I answered on Neutralhomer's usertalk. 67.119.12.29 (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not hounding you: please. I'm glad to know that these IPs are confirmed to be you, as they looked very similar. Cheers... :> Doc9871 (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The mess is that with the way you did it, you don't know of a way to revert these pages to their previous protection status, and apparently neither do other experts. This ought to be a warning to all privileged editors to be exceptionally careful before using powerful tools (or any other means) to perform actions that can't readily be reverted. If Twinkle is capable of causing this sort of problem when used carelessly (though, we accept, in good faith), then perhaps its availability ought to be severely curtailed? David Biddulph (talk) 01:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that the fuss can be minimized, HJ, but perhaps you can see that there may be a reason why case-by-case is different than en masse. No scapegoats are necessary, and I don't think anyone faults your desire to protect the project. Sometimes, though, asking for a second or third opinion on ANI is a good thing to do prior to large-scale changes, as opposed to afterwards. If you could restore the templates to their prior status, that would be fantastic! -- Avi (talk) 23:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I lack the technical knowledge to put them all back, which is where I was hoping 67.119... might have some input. I can easily completely unprotect everything on the database report, but that would remove protection from any templates that were protected prior to my batch run (which Twinkle will have skipped because it already had the protection settings I'd entered). It would also flood the recent changes again, which is why I suggested a bot may be a better way of doing it. Anyway, it's gone 0100 where I am so I'm retiring for the night. Due to RL issues, I won't be on very much tomorrow nor very active when I am, but I'm willing to cooperate as far as my technical knowledge permits if my input is desired. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad that HJ is open to the idea of rolling back this mess. I think avoiding flooding RC would require running with a bot flag, which probably means putting the script through BRFA, so it gets a little cumbersome process-wise in addition to the implementation work already needed. If you're saying your protections weren't from the list of unprotected templates, then yeah, we need a list of the ones that weren't already semi-protected or protected. I'll see if I can figure out how to make such a list. 67.119.12.29 (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm still looking into this. Getting the old protection state doesn't appear so easy, unless there's some undocumented API feature to get the log info for a given page (the docs do have many gaps). If these templates all came from Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unprotected_templates_with_many_transclusions then doesn't it mean they were all unprotected before, so they can all simply be unprotected? If a few of them became protected in the 2 days since that database report and got unprotected by a mass reversion, those few can be reprotected if problems recur. I can actually probably identify all of those, if any exist. 67.119.12.29 (talk) 01:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

After you identify the candidate pages, you should be able to call "logevents" for each one, then parse everything up to the HJM log to identify "previous state", Then parse the HJM change and invert the state. Check forward for more recent logevents and generate an exception list. Franamax (talk) 03:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I looked into that but it seems messy, since when there is an expiring protection event (e.g. 1 month protection) there is no unprotection event logged when the protection expires. So I'd have to find all protections and parse any timestamps in them, and the format of the protection messages seems to have changed a few times that I've noticed. Am I missing something? (Followup: I guess anything with more than one any protection event before this batch is exceptional, at least on this first pass. So I'll flag any of those and just examine them manually unless there's a lot.) 67.119.12.29 (talk) 04:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, there are at least some examples of templates that were previously under semiprotection, like Template:WikiProject Thailand, which was semi since April.[15] I'll do what I can. 67.119.12.29 (talk) 04:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

As a first pass, identify anything that was previously unprotected in a rough sense, i.e. no previous protection logs. What percent is that and doesn't matter anyway, 'cause we can start on that or get a script. Chunk off the easy stuff, next could be anything with a lastlog more than one year old not containing "indef". We can error-check / oh yes, we (in the massive-"we" sense) can error-check. :) Franamax (talk) 05:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Just saw this. OK, that is about 75%. Should I just dump them to a user page? Please respond in "reverting" section below since this section has gotten too long. Thanks. 67.119.12.29 (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Reverting

Continued from above. I'm examining the logs with a script and finding the are a lot that were unprotected before HJ's operation, a few like Template:WikiProject Thailand that were previously semiprotected,[16] some like Template:WikiProject Wine which were unprotected before HJ and then someone else undid HJ's protection but changed the setting to semi,[17] and a number where HJ himself subsequently changed the setting to semi. There doesn't seem like obvious rhyme or reason to semiprotections prior to HJ's protection. Anyway I think I can spot most of these despite the messy API output. 67.119.12.29 (talk) 04:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• I notice User:Riana did a bunch of similar protections (nowhere near as many) in Feb 2008.[18] 67.119.12.29 (talk) 05:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
• Template:WikiProject Food and drink was semi-protected by Riana in Feb 2008, full-protected Mr. Z-man in July 2008, and switched back to semi by Tanner-Christopher the next day. It doesn't seem to have ever been vandalized. 67.119.12.29 (talk) 05:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
• Template:WikiProject Energy previously semi-protected and later unprotected, due to an edit war between several IP's in 2007. Wow. 67.119.12.29 (talk) 05:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting pretty tired and will mess with this some more tomorrow. It looks doable though there may be gaps. 67.119.12.29 (talk) 05:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolution revisited

Background

• Wikipedia:Protection policy was edited over a year ago to state "Highly visible templates or templates in use on many pages are usually protected".
• A new database report was created two days ago listing "unprotected templates with many transclusions".
• A request was made a day or so ago at WP:RFPP for "a kind admin [to] go through" the database report.
• HJ Mitchell was that kind admin.

Issue

There is broad consensus, above, that:

• The 2009 change to Wikipedia:Protection policy does not accurately reflect community consensus.
• Templates - even those with many transclusions - should not be pre-emptively protected.
• Templates protected by HJ Mitchell should be restored to their prior level of protection.

Proposal

• As of now, protection policy still states that "Highly visible templates or templates in use on many pages are usually protected". This should be addressed immediately.  Done Thanks, Thumperward. TFOWR 16:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Database reports/Unprotected templates with many transclusions/1 has but one revision. There is no need to dig out the "oldid" HJ Mitchell used. We can use this page (and the other four pages of the report) to restore previous protection levels. There have been suggestions that a script could be created to restore protection levels - no progress appears to have been made on this issue so I propose that we simply restore protection levels manually. There are 5000 templates listed: I'd suggest we should start at the end of the report and work towards the start of the report. Splitting this task between several admins would obviously hasten the process. I'm happy to volunteer; obviously additional volunteers would be warmly welcomed...
• This was clearly a good-faith move on HJ Mitchell's part, acting according to the current wording of protection policy, and in response to a request at RFPP. However, both Jclemens and Thumperward make the point that WP:BOLD is not a good policy for site-wide changes, and that changes en-masse should be discussed first. I assume HJ has taken this on board and will discuss first in future.

If there are no objections, I'm happy to start removing protection from templates at the end of the database report. I'll hold off for a few hours "just in case". In the meantime, are there any admins who'd like to volunteer their assistance? TFOWR 11:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I personally see no problem with leaving the heavily vandalized ones at full protection and dropping all others to semi-protection as I have mentioned before, but seeing as I am in the minority in this, I don't think I will get much agreement on this. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If there was a quick-and-easy way to identify which templates had been heavily vandalised I'd consider semi-protection, but I suspect it's going to be easier simply to remove all protection and then reconsider protection as needed. My main aim here is to get this sorted as quickly as possible, so that the angry mob disperses ;-) I'm also surprised that we've spent so much time being an angry mob and so little time actually doing anything... TFOWR 12:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you do have a point. Since there are 3,000+ templates, it is easier to just remove all. OK, guess we have no choice on this one. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice going. How's about this as a draft rewording of paragraph 1 at Wikipedia:Protection policy#Templates?

Templates are like all pages in regard to protection, and are not protected unless there is a special reason to do so. Highly visible templates or templates may be semi- or fully protected based on the degree of visibility, type of use, content, and other factors; however, pre-emptive protection is discouraged as with per the general protection guidelines.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Works for me! I've WP:BOLDly updated WP:PROT, linking to your diff above to provide attribution. TFOWR 13:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

And goodly so. Debresser (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Above new WP:PROT text looks good, nice work. The old text was probably inaccurate anyway (policy supposedly being descriptive rather than prescriptive).

Re Neutralhomer - I've looked at several of the templates that were semi-protected before the mass protection and I haven't found a single instance yet of any of them being vandalized by an IP even once. That doesn't mean it never happens, but Template:WikiProject Energy comes the closest I've seen so far--it had an edit war (not exactly vandalism) between IP's in 2007.

I'd appreciate advice about what to do with the script I started writing last night. I can see some value to semi-protecting templates transcluded to sensitive articles but not much point to those transcluded only to talk or project pages. I believe I can separate out the ones that were previously semi-protected from the ones that were unprotected before HJ's operation. I haven't tried to count but a rough guess is that about 20% were previously semi'd. However, a lot of those seem to have been pre-emptively semi'd without prior actual problems. I guess I can also figure out which templates are transcluded into any articles, if that sounds relevant/worthwhile. Easiest for me is if you decide to just unprotect everything, but I can see how that might cause issues. 67.119.12.29 (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Separating the previous-protected templates from the batch-protected would be hugely useful: right now I'm un-protecting manually, checking first whether the template was protected as part of the 12 September batch, or protected earlier. A list that was limited to just the 12 September batch templates would mean we could use Twinkle or similar to unprotect which would be quicker and far less tedious. TFOWR 15:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm only looking at the batch-protected ones. What I'm trying to do is separate the ones that were unprotected before the batch protection, from the ones that were semi-protected. Roughly 75% were definitely unprotected (they have just one protection event in their log) and the rest were mostly semi-protected but need more complicated processing to tell exactly what happened. I guess I can put up two lists (the 75% and the rest) and then if necessary do some more work on splitting the second list into sub-lists. 67.119.12.29 (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well if you can go through my log and find log entries of "changed protection settings" rather than "protected", we'll know which ones had some form of protection prior to my batch protection. Once we know that, they can all be mass unprotected and those that previously had protection can have the original settings restored. I don't know how to separate out different actions that appear in the same log, but I imagine there must be a way. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at User talk:75.57.241.57/x which has list of templates from that batch with just one protection event. Note that some of them are redirects. The "link" next to each one bypasses the redirect in each case. If it helps I can flag the redirects some other way, but it means querying all the urls again, so it will take a little while to run all those queries. There is also apparently a trick for adjusting your css settings to change the colors of redirects, WP:Visualizing redirects, so that may be easier. 75.57.241.57 (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: it appeared earlier that looking for "changed protection level" isn't reliable, e.g. Template:WikiProject Mammals shows up as a changed protection even though it had no previous protection event, but I see now that it was moved from Template:Mammal which was protected (by this same batch of protections, sigh). Which, hmm, means that there are some protected redirects that my script didn't catch. Anyway, this is a start. 75.57.241.57 (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

...a very good start, thanks 75.57. I've already started working through the db report, I'll shift focus to your list. TFOWR 17:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll do some processing on the rest in a while, if the above can keep you busy for now. RL stuff beckons... 75.57.241.57 (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way I hope you're at least eyeballing the template names as you unprotect them. A few really do seem to call for protection, like the redirect Template:Sockpuppetproven which was unprotected earlier. It's interesting that Template:SockpuppetProven was protected then unprotected. 75.57.241.57 (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Not really, to be honest :-( My only concern has whether the template was protected before - if not, it's gone back to unprotected. In these two cases, HJ move protected the redirects, which does seem reasonable (rather than move the redirect, simply create a new one) so I'll take care with redirects. Thanks for the heads-up. TFOWR 20:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, User talk:75.57.241.57/y has what I think are the rest of them. They are split into 46 where HJ added protection to something that had previously been unprotected, and 366 where HJ modified the protection level, which presumably means it was semi-protected before, but I can't be absolutely sure of the accuracy. I included log links for convenience. Let me know (here) if anything else would be useful. 75.62.4.206 (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that. That makes things a lot easier. All the pages on that list (Y) (as of my timestamp) have been restored to their original protection settings (be it semi or unprotection). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I can use Twinkle again to unprotect everything on list X, but it will flood the recent changes. We can A) put up wiht flooded recent changes for 1500 logged actions B) flag my account as a bot temporarily (if that's allowed by policy and 'crats agree) or C) code a bot and request speedy approval at BRFA. Which is most preferable? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Coding a bot is too much hassle if twinkle can handle those. I can make different links or urls if that helps. I think using twinkle is preferable to a full-auto bot because it allows a bit of eyeball sanity checking of the stuff on the list. I'm not sure what to think of the bot flag issue. It probably makes sense for list X because yours was the only protection event for those pages (unless someone did something after list X was made). List Y has multiple actions so there are potentially other people who have touched the protection settings of that page at one time or another, and might want a watchlist alert. 67.117.146.236 (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Note, TFOWR may already have processed part of list X. I guess I could re-run the script and see if a smaller list comes out. 67.117.146.236 (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Upon the Flooding of RC

Wasn't RCP already flooded once already when this all was done? And i don't think much of asking BAG to rush through an approval either, that's really not their role. If someone is going to use Twinkle, can't they just mark off their own piece of the list? That said, a timestamped updated list which filters out the pages from the batch (and maybe the reirects too, dunno 'bout that) change which have subsequent log entries could be pretty useful. Franamax (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll see about making another list in a while-- I have to do some things in RL at the moment. 67.117.146.236 (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

List X is awesome. I've split it into three sections - done, doing, and to do. It's a lot quicker, being able to use Twinkle for this - the only checks I'm making are whether the page is a redirect (I'm ignoring redirects). That said, I've only done 60, and it's bloody tedious. Any assistance would be very warmly welcomed. I'm taking a break now, I'll return to it later. TFOWR 10:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Is flooding RC really that bad? If it went as fast as it did the first time we could unprotect all 1500 of the remaining templates in literally 5 or so minutes. And if flooding RC really is a problem can we just do it with a bot-flagged account, as suggested before? It would save us all a lot of work. In the meantime, we could weed out the ones that are redirects, etc. —Soap— 10:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. In the past I've simply ignored obviously repetitive actions - I see editor X do somrhting a few times, then I ignore editor X. I'm sure RC-patrollers are ignoring me right now ;-) TFOWR 10:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, OK, I did a few ... and put them in a collapsible at the bottom of the page. I really think this could be done fully automated and save us a lot of time, though, and if Im not mistaken HJ himself has offered to do it. —Soap— 12:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

A full auto operation would need bot approval and more careful development/testing... if there is something I can do to reformat list X to make it easier to plow through with Twinkle, please let me know. That includes linking to the logs, marking redirects, whatever. Could I just make an "unprotect" link? You'd have to tell me how to format it. 67.119.12.216 (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually now that the list is completely generated an auto or semi-auto script that ran through it would be pretty simple. But an admin would have to run it. 67.119.12.216 (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. With Twinkle I could go through the entire list in less time than it took me to do the thirty or so that I did "manually", and even though some of them would be redirects I don't think that's a huge problem since anyone who wants to vandalize a redirect could vandalize the actual template just as easily. I wouldn't be a bot while Twinkling away the protection on all 1500 templates, any more than HJ Mitchell was a bot when he was adding protection to them yesterday. Though a bot flag would deal with the RC-flooding issue. So really there's nothing stopping me from doing this except that I'm not clear there's been community approval to do so, or else surely someone else would have done it that way already. —Soap— 15:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

IMO it's fine to use twinkle for this, there's been plenty of discussion in favor of the reversion. Please see below section about updated x2 list. 67.119.12.216 (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

new list

Franamax, if I understand what you're asking, you want a new version of list X, that throws out any entries that have had new protection actions since X was made, that has a timestamp on each entry saying when the query was made, and that highlights or flags redirects somehow? Do you know if I can identify the redirects without an additional info query on each page? Right now I just do a logentry query on each page, so adding an info query will slow the script down by 2x or so. (I can do something else while it runs, of course). I wondered whether the Visible Redirects mentioned above was an ok substitute. 67.117.146.236 (talk) 03:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I rebuilt list X and it Looks like nothing on it has been touched since the earlier list X was made (a few minutes before I posted into to that usertalk page). It's the same pages. I guess I can re-run the script tomorrow and flag anything that's different. 67.117.146.236 (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

List X is working well. If you need to re-run it, it would be good if you break it down into chunks of, say, 100, each chunk getting its own sub-heading. That means two or more admins can work on the list easily. Soap split off a separate section, and the pair of us worked quite happily on the list. Other than that, no, I think the list is fine. I've been pushing stuff I've done into a {{collapse top}} box; in hindsight it's probably easier just to delete stuff once it's done. TFOWR 13:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I can do that, but couldn't you just edit those headings in directly, or say "I'm taking #100-200" or whatever? What I was wondering is if it would help if I made a direct link to the log or to an unprotect action. I guess twinkle handles that though. Or I could run API queries to identify all the redirects if that helps. 67.119.12.216 (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Aye, it's no biggie - if it's hassle don't worry about it. I don't know how you're doing it, but I assuemd some sort of for...next...step type loop. As you say, it's easy enough to do as Soap did, and simply add a new section to indicate which items we're taking. Twinkle handles the unprotect side of things, so don't worry about that. TFOWR 14:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I can put it in the next list. If you want to take a break I can run the script again. It takes about 20 minutes to run, because of the API queries. 67.119.12.216 (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a hardship, but I'll force myself to take a break. I hope you appreciate the sacrifice I'm making, sitting down and drinking tea, eating cake...! ;-) TFOWR 15:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops, just saw that, I'll tweak a few things then start then run shortly. 67.119.12.216 (talk) 15:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:75.57.241.57/x2. Actually maybe I should have just clobbered x to avoid confusion. Come to think of it, why don't I just do that. Update: I just tried, and couldn't, because an edit filter stopped it, sigh. Please feel free to move the data from x2 to x. 67.119.12.216 (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That new list is ideal. I've copied-and-pasted it to User talk:75.57.241.57/x per your suggestion. Chunks of 100 seem a lot more manageable, and it was reassuring to see that Soap and me had reduced the number of open items to under 1500 ;-) TFOWR 19:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No prob. I'd been imagining from HJ's posts that it took basically one click per entry to handle it with Twinkle. If it's more than that, the simplest thing to do might be ask at BRFA or BAG for a bot developer who is an admin to read that list into a trivial script that unprotects all the entries. I could write the script, but would not be able to test it, and a bot dev capable of testing and fixing my script would probably prefer to just write it themselves. 67.119.12.216 (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Nah, Twinkle is fine. The list makes it trivial. The problem sans-list was having to manually check previous protection levels. With the list I just need to Twinkle-away protection. I did a batch of 100 earlier; it took me 17 minutes. I'll try and get the list beaten tomorrow, unless anyone wants to beat me to it... TFOWR 22:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry 57.117 for not getting to this eariler. I was actually thinking of a timestamp for the report page, i.e. "current candidates as of YYMMDD HHMM" which would exclude the pages already addressed, thus allow people to work on random chunks of new candidates. Looks like the solution you people have worked out above is better thought out. A single timestamp wouldn't necessarily work in this dynamic environment. I'm rather ashamed I haven't pitched in yet on the manual changes, I think I have that Twinkle thing hanging about somewhere, but hoping instead to achieve the free time to do it the hard way. Thanks for your help on this! Franamax (talk) 03:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I see TFOWR has knocked off a bunch more of the X list. Thanks for the effort, and I admire the stamina ;). If and when all the list sections are collapsed, I'll run the script again to see if anything got missed. 67.119.14.196 (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the database report

There is also the question of what we do about the database report that sparked this incident. I have suggested over at Wikipedia talk:Database reports that the threshold of inclusion be raised from 500 transclusions to at least 1000 (this alone would cut the original report in half), but is this enough? I don't personally think that having the report is a bad thing, but we don't need a repeat of this situation. PC78 (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

More importantly it should split out the transclusions into article and non-article transclusions. It's a lot less entertaining to vandalize templates that only appear in talk pages. The numerical quantity of transclusions doesn't seem to matter much either, since a lot relate to basically serene topics. I'd look for templates that are transcluded into articles that themselves have spent a lot of time under protection, or have been protected multiple times, extra points for BLP transclusions. 67.117.146.236 (talk) 00:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree about mainspace transclusions vs otherspace transclusions, but I'm not so sure that there's a genuine connection between an article that has been protected and the templates used in it. PC78 (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the cut-off point (500 transclusions, 1000 transclusions, whatever) is relevant, to be honest. Let's say we change the report so that it only shows templates with 100,000+ transclusions - what does that tell us? That the templates should be protected? I don't believe that that's the case - the consensus above seems to be that we shouldn't be protecting templates simply because of the quantity of transclusions. What would probably be more useful is a note re: protection policy. (The new-and-improved, Thumperward-updated protection policy that reflects current consensus). TFOWR 09:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If the purpose of the list is at odds with concensus regading template protection, then that would seem to be an argument for not having the list at all, yes? PC78 (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe it's the case that the purpose of the list is at odds with WP:PROT. The list is simply a list ;-) It has uses outside protection - it serves to show which templates we should consider watchlisting, for example. TFOWR 12:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, I kind of agree with that assessment (as I said above), but my concern is that the list will inevitably lead to a repeat of this situation; if the list did not have it's cut-off point set so low, it would have mitigated the damage done this time around. So to my original point about raising the cut-off point: does 501 transclusions really constitute "many transclusions", so much so that a template needs to be monitored? I personally don't think so. PC78 (talk) 13:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This protection incident was basically bot drama, something that happens often enough that maybe there should be some kind of indoctrination against it in the policy pages and in admin culture. If it wasn't the protection report, it probably would have been something else. The report doesn't seem that useful for watchlist purposes, since templates with a lot of transclusions probably have a lot of watchers already. It's probably more useful to vandals, which is a good reason to get rid of it. The unprotection lists that I made (x/x2/y above) probably shouldn't stay around either, once folks here are done with them. 75.62.2.105 (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

These kind of reports are relatively trivial to create, perhaps less trivial than they are to find even. I'm not sure I see the upside to burying them. Shadowjams (talk) 01:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The type of vandals we're talking about are probably not up to the task of creating database reports. 75.62.2.105 (talk) 02:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:High-risk templates

For the last five years, Wikipedia has had a guideline reflecting a consensus that templates with an extremely large number of transclusions should be fully protected, preemptively -- we cannot permit someone to vandalize 200,000 articles simultaneously, even once. Rather than trying to repudiate years of general agreement on the guideline, it would be more helpful to discuss exactly which templates are considered high risk: ie, > x transclusions for mainspace, > y transclusions for talk, etc, in the absence of compelling reasons for specific templates to receive different treatment. HJ Mitchell may have fully protected templates that had too few transclusions to qualify as "high risk", but only because of a decided lack of clarity in the high risk template guideline and protection policy. We avoid stating exactly how much vandalism, BLP violations, etc, would qualify a page for protection as instruction creep. However, page protection in response to inappropriate editing is usually not subject to constant disputation. Retaining vague and nebulous language in WP:HRT will only result in more incidents just like this one, and constant arguing over whether templates should be fully protected -- only the names of the administrators involved will be different. A definitive resolution of this issue would avoid much conflict in the future. Peter Karlsen (talk) 04:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I've started a discussion about this issue at WT:HRT. Peter Karlsen (talk) 05:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm responding about HRT-specific issues at WT:HRT but I think "[r]etaining vague and nebulous language in WP:HRT will only result in more incidents just like this one" misunderstands what happened here, which didn't have much to do with vague and nebulous language in HRT in my opinion. The error is summed up by "I did the same thing that happens every day at RfPP, I just did it en masse."[19] It's fine to make an isolated error of judgment at RFPP or almost anywhere else, since it can be undone easily. The disruptive incident is entirely from the "en masse" part. Failure to distinguish "everyday" from "en masse" is a perennial source of drama, and HRT vagueness just happened to be the vehicle for it this time. If we're going to respond to the protection incident with policy development, that development should be towards a "never do anything en masse without prior discussion, especially with automated tools" policy. With that in place, vagueness in other policies wouldn't give rise to this particular form of drama. 75.62.2.105 (talk) 06:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

We definitely need a policy to that effect... i can think of several issues that doing en masse undiscussed things automatedly resulted in big ANI threads and big arguments/discussions. —Alison (Crazytales) (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

A eulogy for the Wikipedia that is no more

I read the above debate about protecting "high risk" templates and couldn't help but think what in hell is Wikipedia coming to?

"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit (*)." * - offer not valid to non-administrators. That's what the main page should say. We've developed a class system here. Administrators have been trusted with access to certain tools. That policy doesn't say administrators are trusted editors. Yet, that's exactly what has happened. More than 8,000 templates are now fully protected. ~1700 articles are fully protected.

What's worse is the insidious notion that we must preemptively protect lest the unwashed masses cause damage to Wikipedia's credibility. So we must protect the project by preemptively protecting "high risk" templates? Why not preemptively protect featured articles? Oh wait, we've tried that before. Why not preemptively protect the top 1000 most visited articles on the project? The same rationale would apply there. Those are the most visible components of Wikipedia. Shouldn't we protect them?

Wikipedia came out of nothingness because of the bold idea that the masses could be trusted to create a great work. The idea was ridiculed, scoffed at, thrown in the dirt as a sociological oddity. It couldn't create something good, right? We of course know the answer to that. Yet now, we turn against that very bold notion and so no, the masses CAN'T be trusted. They can cause grave harm, damage our reputation, vandalize too many things at once. They just can't be trusted anymore.

Enter the age of trench mentality in Wikipedia. Now that the project is becoming 'mature', the defense of what has been created becomes more important to the entrenched oligarchy than the very bold notion on which it was founded.

My userpage notes "This user is not an administrator and is therefore probably trying to disrupt the project, or is at least grossly incompetent." How prophetic. The entrenched mentality is now that this is true. I am not an administrator, therefore I am not to be trusted. Welcome to the new Wikipedia Wikistatic, the project that once embraced the masses and now despises them. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from Xyz231

Xyz231 (talk · contribs) has been engaging in disruptive editing at PlaneShift (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), his user talk page, and elsewhere. The issue stems from a content dispute at PlaneShift (video game), where Xyz231 has repeatedly (diff 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) added (and reverted the removal of) content that is unencyclopedic, spammy, and based on unreliable/self-published sources. Talk:PlaneShift (video game) is mostly Xyz231 against every other editor, and the consensus is that this content should not be in the article. In the article talk page and on his own user talk page, Xyz231's responsive has largely been dismissive of Wikipedia's P&G and uncivil towards other users (for example). He has been warned before for incivility and removing maintenance templates, as seen on his user talk page. I've recently tried discussing these issues with him, but his response was to deny that his editing went against our P&G (essentially saying the consensus is wrong) and to post an accusatory rant on his User page. This is only the most recent run-in we've had with this editor. In the past, we've had issues with repeated removal of maintenance tags, addition of similar content, and so on. I'm wondering if any administrators could assist? Wyatt Riot (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

On a side note, assuming him and Planeshift rpg are the same person, Xyz231 has COI and PlaneShift (video game) is the only article he edits. Tuxide (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Why you continue to spit on people? You troublemaker. Xyz231 (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

...troublemaker? Well, thanks for dedicating your userpage to me I guess! Tuxide (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

OK I guess that didn't come out the way I wanted it to. My point was that the editor writes an essay on his userpage about troublemakers, and then he comes over here and calls me one. Furthermore, he responds in a personal way without even addressing my COI claim directly. If he is Planeshift rpg (talk · contribs) like we've been assuming he is, then that means he's one of the developers of the game and he shouldn't even be editing the article to begin with. Tuxide (talk) 04:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that while my COI has just been speculated and anyway I think being a fan of a game should not be considered COI, yours is proven. Interesting how you immediately related yourself to my user page article. Xyz231 (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I would says you've proven yourself to have a major COI here. You've never edited anything other then the subject article, we all edit many other articles. You are intent on pushing points about how fabulous this software is, while we're more interested in improving the article to good status, the goal of any good Wikipedia editor. Either you are a fanatical fan or are somehow related to the development team. Either way, this AN/I thread is related to your disruptive behavior as far as editing and personal attacks go, not to partake in name calling or incivility. SpigotMap 12:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Very unrelated point. The fact I'm just editing this page is because I started from it, but the history behind it, considering all the past reverts/changes/deletion/nomination for deletion made me so sick of editing Wikipedia, that surely I will not edit anything else on it in my life. I wanted to see if it was true, or if the previous editors were just unlucky, but it's really true! Now I know it for myself. Xyz231 (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't matter if I was Luca Pancallo himself because I don't even edit the article in question. Any claim here that I have COI is irrelevant. You on the other hand have COI. Tuxide (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, just searching your name on the internet bring up TONS of COI for you with PlaneShift. So just the above phrase should discret your other statements. Shame on you. Xyz231 (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Please point out how I have COI, and I would like to remind that whether I do is irrelevant because I don't edit the article. Tuxide (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I want to nominate Wyatt Riot (talk) to be reviewed for ignoring the multiple explanations I've given to why those edits are correct, and for just calling my edits "disruptive editing" when those are solid and backed up with secondary sources. His claims are false, and my reverts were made because someone else as usual decided to bash the article and remove information from the page just because they clearly stated they hate the game. Xyz231 (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The edits are disruptive because you are editing against consensus, guidelines and policy. You've been told why certain things can't or shouldn't be included in the article and have been given ways to clean up the text, and had the article cleaned up to fall within Wikipedia standards, but you insist on reverting the article. You insist on attacking other editors and obviously have a conflict of interest as the only reason you seem to log in to Wikipedia is to revert any changes made to the article or attack other editors. SpigotMap 13:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the PlaneShift (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) page holds the truth, as my user page, just read it and let's see who did disruptive editing. I'm the only one who added reliable information and sources to that page along with few others you managed to scare away. Now do as usual, and troll also this page. Xyz231 (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as my own editing goes, I feel that I've been working within our policies and guidelines, I've tried building consensus, and I also tried working with Xyz231. If any admin would like to examine my behavior, I am open to any suggestions and/or enforcement that may come out of it. Wyatt Riot (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Incivility and personal attacks towards other editors

Instead of opening another case on another noticeboard, I feel this is the proper place to bring up this editors further incivility towards other editors. Here are some diffs of this users blatant disregard of policies and guidelines regarding civility, personal attacks, assuming bad faith, conflict of interest, and ownership of articles. [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27].

The editor has essentially admitted to being the "director" (Luca) of this project with comments such as this. Why would a developer of the game know the year the director was born? Even if they knew, they wouldn't catch something like that.

This editor has shown no restraint in editing or attacking other editors and does not seem willing to abide by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, stating at times that they will "Continue to protect this article from vandalism". Vandalism meaning removing any information from the article, regardless of quality or policies. According to them, the article is supposed to be "fun" and "entertaining" to read, like a game magazine article or something similar. SpigotMap 14:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Another nice list of false statements. I'm really interested on what you will pretend to know next, sticking names and responsibilities to people and twisting the meaning of comments, when you never added a single good thing to the article. "No comment" really. Xyz231 (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, one last thing, continue to bully around, call admins, ask deletions, and such, instead of just improving the article. That really identifies you as a "great editor"! Xyz231 (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I seriously doubt at this point that the PlaneShift (video game) article itself would be deleted (from a spot-check of the sources given), so let's put that thought aside. The focus needs to remain on the content itself. Xyz231, it is not your article; it is everyone's. That being said, I understand your level of emotional attachment to the article and to the game itself; I watchlist quite a few articles in which I have been a huge fan of myself and that I have helped bring up to high levels of quality. It looks like you just need to step back a little and recollect your thoughts. Nobody is out to get you here, and in order for any of us to help you out, you first need to help us out by first laying off the inflammatory tone. You will get much better results and responses from others if you response with a better tone and rapport than what you are right now. –MuZemike 18:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand that and I do my best, but it's hard considering the continuous bashing of the article happened over the last years, many editors decided to improve it then kind of given up, I joined recently and I found the same situation. Xyz231 (talk) 04:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to make another example, just today the usual bashers decided to remove even the creator name of the game, [28] [29] they just go on like that forever until the article is reduced to nothing. None can see the pattern here and stop them? Xyz231 (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there anyone who can give me some advice here? In order for the subject article to ever improve, we really need to establish that the editor in question has COI. Without making it look like an OUTING. Tuxide (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Outing occurs when you reveal personal information about an editor when that editor has made an effort to keep their personal information private. DoRD had determined that Xyz231 and Planeshift rpg were the same person, without specifying why. Perhaps if he were to comment we could clear that up. If indeed they're the same person then Xyz231 was self-outed and therefore the conflict of interest is already proven. -- Atama頭 18:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, it's blatantly obvious. Planeshift rpg was soft-blocked for a username violation and Xyz231 was created immediately after and took right up where the other stopped (which is allowed, that's the point of a soft-block). So they're without a doubt the same person. Since Xyz231 has admitted to being a developer, there's no question about COI. -- Atama頭 18:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This is getting too far. Administrators action needed.

I got fed up by editing the english wiki, and so I started to port into the french wiki the parts of the article which are now part of the english one. After I did that, SpigotMap started to revert my edits there as well. This is too much guys, now he doesn't allow even to port those agreed changes in the french wiki?? I tell you, or you take action against him, or will be edit warring for ever. I'm not going to tolerate anymore this kind of censorship, bulling and indiscriminate bashing of this game by a person who clearly stated he hates the game and so should stay away from editing the pages. I ask you to block his user and be vigilant of further similar changes made by him. Xyz231 (talk) 09:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed by who? There is no censorship here. There are however policies and guidelines, even on the French Wikipedia. SpigotMap 12:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You need to appeal to admins at the French Wikipedia. We can't do anything here about his actions there. Even if he was blocked it wouldn't stop anything he did outside of the English Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 16:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That's just the last strand, the majority of the issues are on the english wikipedia, documented in my talk page. Xyz231 (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You claim on your talk page that SpigotMap "created an alt to fake the identity of the game creator"... Do you have evidence of that? Your diffs you provided show no link between SpigotMap and the blocked editor. You seem to imply that the editor was blocked for being a sockpuppet ("got discovered and the account gets blocked") but the account was blocked for legal threats. If this is just unfounded speculation on your part, you need to remove it immediately, defamation like that is not allowed. Also, you're pointing to edits that SpigotMap made up to 4 years ago as evidence of their problems; that far back I myself was a pretty clueless editor and made a bunch of mistakes too. Stretching back that far to make a case against SpigotMap seems somewhat petty. I don't see any evidence that SpigotMap is a problem, but the evidence against yourself seems to be mounting. Your most recent comments at Talk:PlaneShift (video game) are the last straw. If you continue that behavior, you'll be indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 18:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Do what you want, I'm totally fed up by this, and if you guys don't get it, well, then there is really no point in explaining it more. Xyz231 (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, just a last one, SpigotMap got confused by all his alternate accounts (tell me if that's sockpuppet or not) and managed to answer with the wrong user in his talk page [30] . It's not even funny anymore to me. Xyz231 (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That's only Tuxide commenting on SpigotMap's talk page. I do that sometimes too, commenting on others' talk pages. Sometimes people will even watch others' talk pages (see WP:TPS for a page about it). That's far from a "gotcha", I think you're grasping at straws. -- Atama頭 23:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

SpigotMap and I are definitely not the same person. It's not like I enjoy talking to myself. Tuxide (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Speaking of socks, "I will continue to avoid vandalism on the PlaneShift page, whatever it will take (new accounts, new IPs, or even asking the players to keep it sane). No troublemaker is going to win."[31]. It's been alluded to above, but this seems very ducky. Xyz231: you're not a sock of indefinitely blocked Planeshift rpg, are you? The behavior is exceedingly similar, you know... Doc9871 (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Xyz231 is not a sockpuppet. I already explained this above, Planeshift rpg was soft-blocked for violating our username policy. A soft block means that the editor is no longer allowed to edit under that particular account, but is allowed to edit under a new account. Such a username block is done only because the username is inappropriate. The editor is asked to either request a new username, or to create a new account with a name that complies with our policies. Xyz231 chose the latter, and it was perfectly legitimate. Read the dialog at User_talk:Planeshift_rpg#Relation to the Game, especially the block template that DoRD had left, and note where it says "please take a few moments to create a new account with a username that represents only you". I do those kinds of blocks all the time myself, especially as I run into username violators at WP:COIN frequently. Before the username block, there was a block (of 31 hours) for vandalism, so it's worth noting that Planeshift rpg didn't have a squeaky clean record, but the indefinite block wasn't for behavioral problems. -- Atama頭 22:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up - missed that part. Behavioral problems between the two accounts make more sense now: hopefully he won't make good on his threat if the renamed account is blocked. Apologies, Xyz231 :> Doc9871 (talk) 23:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Zuggernaut - Canvassing to try and influence debate

Could an admin please take a look at the actions of Zuggernaut. This editor has made several problematic alterations to articles which have been undone and are being debated on the talk pages of the relevant articles. He has now posted on certain wikiprojects which have no relation to the specific debates, in order to try and stack the debate. [32] and [33] and [34], that is on top of posting about it on the Indian related articles noticeboard. This is clearly 1 sided canvassing to further his agenda. Any assistance would be helpful thanks. I will inform the user about this post, and the two articles impacted. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. None of my edits can be classified as problematic as logs, history and diffs show. I have merely followed WP:BOLD and more than 99% of my edits have been accepted. When they haven't I've taken the discussion to the talk pages. Two such discussions are at the articles stated by the complainant. I have posted on relevant project talk pages and simply invited editors to join in forming consensus. I doubt this can be called biased canvassing or anything like that. Both posts are here [35] [36]. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Some of your edits have certainly been problematic, which is why they have been disputed and are now being debated on talk pages. Could you please explain to me what Irish Republicanism has to do with the India article? BritishWatcher (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again, zero posts have been problematic. Different POV perhaps (and that POV happens to be a mainstream POV, per WP:Reliable sources in India, a country of 1.2 billion). So, I need to emphasize, definitely no problematic posts from me as diffs and history will show. Irish people were subjects of the British Empire. Many editors there may have a great deal of interest both articles. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You chose to post on the Irish Republicanism noticeboard because you thought it would help bring in editors closer to your own POV on this matter. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I chose them because they were Irish. I have invited them per Wikipedia policies. I intend to invite people from all British colonies to participate in the debate . I will do so per Wikipedia policies. Your complaint is frivolous and designed to slow down or stifle a different POV. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain how having more people participate can be problematic.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

KK, see WP:CANVAS for information on when asking people to participate may be problematic. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

OK but I can't see how they are in this case.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I can assure that none of my posts are problematic. Feel free to scrutinize my history log and diffs to the fullest. Britishwatcher is upset because I have a different POV an because I have have been persistent with it (on talk pages). I have invited people on two projects to joint the debate. I have NOT asked them to vote one way or the other.Zuggernaut (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Choosing them "because they were Irish" could seem like votestacking to some. To some... Doc9871 (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Not really, as Northern Ireland (part of UK) look at one of those boards too. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It is outlined in WP:CANVASSING that your actions are canvassing if you are just alerting editors of a particular field or POV; in this case, alerting only those of a specific nationality is canvassing. If you were to alert the other side as well, it wouldn't be.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I have only tried to open the discussion to a wider audience. You are making assumptions that people of a certain nationality will vote one way. A user from India is opposing my view and another from the UK is supporting it - there are all sorts of permutations and compositions in the discussion. It has nothing to do with ethnicity or national origin. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth; I made no such assumptions, I simply told you what the page said, and compared it with what you did, and you did canvass.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Irish Republicanism ‎ Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland were the 3 boards he chose to raise this on. India-related topics board makes sense, although clearly just advertising there and not also to the UK board is bias canvassing (in the case of the British Empire article). But there is no justification or need for posting to the Irish Republicanism board on a subject related to the India article. I suppose it could be a complete coincidence that Irish Republicanism have rather negative views about the United Kingdom, but such random canvassing surely can not be acceptable. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring Wikipedia:Assume good faith both in Zuggernaut and the edits made by people brought into the debate from those boards.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

How so? WP:CANVAS is a guideline; violating it in good faith is still a violation, and I haven't seen BW suggest anywhere that Zuggernaut knowingly or intentionally violated it, just that it was canvassing and therefore problematic. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The accusation is that he is "canvassing to try and influence debate" rather than trying to notify interested parties. There is also an implicit assumption that anyone attracted will behave in a way that is not NPOV, otherwise there would be no problem with there participation.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I've invited people in a neutral way. I have not asked them to vote one way or the other. I found that the featured article British Empire article had a Eurocentric view. I made some changes over the last few days to fix that [37][38][39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45]. Some of the contents were offensive - liker terming Indians in India "natives", reversing sequences to emphasize European aspects only. I hope you are not mad because those changes were reversed by me. I also hope that you are not mad because I have a different POV. Let the admins look at diffs/history/logs and decide for themselves. Zuggernaut (talk) 00:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Kitchen Knife, i would not have raised this here if Zuggernaut had just posted on the India -related articles noticeboard. But the posting on the Irish Republicanism wikiproject is just totally unjustified and seems to be trying to influence the debate. Why the Irish republicanism wikiproject? It had absolutely nothing to do with the debate taking place on India and not really linked to the issue on the British Empire article either. But its the India post on the Irish Republican wikiproject that is the most problematic. Theres just no justification for it BritishWatcher (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Obvious vote-stacking is obvious. It's hard to think of a more obvious example tbh. Asking Wikiproject Louisiana to come and give unbiased input at the George Bush article maybe. MickMacNee (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's a question from a passing observer: If this is about letting relevant WikiProjects know of an issue with the British Empire article, why edits to all of those WikiProjects and no edits to the blazingly obvious Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Empire (or indeed to any of the six WikiProjects listed at the top of Talk:British Empire)? Uncle G (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

And another question. Is there a policy breach here somewhere? What exactly is the "incident"? I hardly think a potential breach of a guideline merits taking up time here. --HighKing (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That is my question as well, Uncle G. Canvassing only the Indian and Irish projects over a series of edits that appear mostly related to India, and edits that take a position that is decidedly less sympathetic to the British Empire? Yeah, that's not neutral at all. Whether or not the edits themselves are valid, British Watcher has a good point here. Resolute 01:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I deny once again the allegations BritishWatcher has made against me. Since a complaint which should not have been here in the first place is already here, I am providing the following from the respective guideline:

“ How to respond to inappropriate canvassing
The most effective response to quite recent, clearly disruptive canvassing is to politely request that the user(s) responsible for the canvassing stop posting notices. If they continue, they may be reported to the administrators' noticeboard, which may result in their being blocked from editing. Users with a prior history of disruptive canvassing, which they have previously been asked to discontinue, may be blocked immediately without further warning, if such an action is deemed to be necessary. ”

Had the editor contacted me directly, we could have easily sorted out any possible misunderstanding. I'm asking admins to please close this case so we can get back to editing articles instead of wasting limited Wikipedia time here. I will also ask that BritishWatcher assume good faith in the future, even if we are discussing issues with significant POV differences. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

He's not required to contact you "directly": and you're still saying you did nothing wrong whatsoever. It's his fault, now? Doc9871 (talk) 02:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Given that you still think you did nothing wrong, I fail to see how him talking to you directly could have solved anything.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm stunned by the level of discussion here! This is looking more like a street fight! If Zuggernaut's being Irish is the problem (and I think people who raised the issue should be termed racist!) I own his suggestions! Now! If it really matters, I'm am an Indian. Should I be ashamed of it? I'm not being able to understand what's going on here! If this is the way folks in wikipedia conduct themselves then I need to seriously see if this place is worth it and if I should be wasting my time here! I'm sure this is not the way wikipedia was intended to be! I even mobilized my twitter followers to raise funds for the site at one point. If this debate does not come on track by the very next comment, I'll escalate this matter to the highest forum of wikipedia and I promise you that. And by "on track" I mean discussion over Zuggernaut's suggestions and not what who is! Let's modify his statements and paste if here of on the talk page of the article. work on the article and let's stop quarrellings!

btw, who is the admim looking into this matter?

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 07:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You need to gain a bit more experience before you start jumping in discussions and calling people racist. You also need to learn to not put words in peoples' mouths, such as saying people are saying 'etc' because this editor is Irish; no, that is not why. Please try reading the discussion, because that is not it at all.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Choosing them "because they were Irish" could seem like votestacking to some. To some... Doc9871 (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Not really, as Northern Ireland (part of UK) look at one of those boards too. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It is outlined in WP:CANVASSING that your actions are canvassing if you are just alerting editors of a particular field or POV; in this case, alerting only those of a specific nationality is canvassing. If you were to alert the other side as well, it wouldn't be.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

What does these mean? I interpret these as what i said earlier! Like i mentioned earlier, this is a quarrel and not a discussion anymore... and I will therefore appeal to other forums of wikipedia to resolve this issue. For now I don't see how this will reach a conclusion. So far my experience goes, people here knows too little about me to know such things. I would appreciate if they keeps their notions to themselves. And why does everyone seem to put words into your mouth, Daedalus969? This is not the first time you made that remark and last time it was not me!

Anyway, I don't want to stoop lower in this debate. I'm writing emails to the wikipedia management and will request them to look into this matter.

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 07:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool! Make sure that you include that Zuggernaut, just above, made the comment about informing editors because they were Irish[46]. And you are probably no longer "the most neural person in the debate" (see below). Happy shopping :> Doc9871 (talk) 08:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That isn't how it works. You can't just go around saying that party X said Y when they in reality said Z, nor can you go around calling people racist.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

And really, it -was- you who were the one putting words in peoples' mouths; above, you state 'If Zuggernaut's being Irish is the problem', when in reality, no one had said anything like that. What they have said, however, is he was canvassing in two specific groups, instead of a broader group of people.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This debate is going nowhere!

Alright, let us not take things personally and make this an ego issue. I don't understand this, "what is the problem in stating examples of the British oppression while they colonized India?" specially when it is backed by credible citations? Are we trying to say that we can't write things against the acts of oppression committed by imperialist powers in wikipedia. Are we of the opinion that the concepts of "imperialism" should be protected? I think, these are an intrinsic part of Indian history! I would request an admin to answer these for me in a clear cut manner. No diplomacy please!!!

I seem to be the most neutral person in this entire debate! I believe the following two facts about the British rule in India, -

1) The regime was oppressive and was only interested in exploiting the native population. They did that even in the American continent! And yes, they did not take appropriate measures to arrest famines in India for whatever reasons! More people died of hunger in the subcontinent during the Raj than during any other time.

2) If India is a country today it is because of the British Raj. India as it stands today (Geographically) never existed before the brits came and colonized this place. Therefore, the country owes it's very creation to their rule.

There is a positive and a negative side to every regime. It is our duty to represents facts, without fear or shame to the world at large. This debate is going no where and is increasingly becoming an ego fight between the faction which wants portray some facts and others who want to protect interests! We need to escalate this to the highest levels. Personally, I really don't care if the "featured article" tag is removed as long as "truth" wins.

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 06:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Another point

It is being persistently said that there is no consensus on Zuggernaut's suggestions, which in my observation is untrue. I see the debate here 60:40 in favor of modifying Zuggernaut's suggestions and then publishing it. I can see about 2 editors against it and another taking a neutral view of the situation. With all humility, I'm sorry, but in the civilized world this act is called bullying!

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 06:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh please. That is not the case for either the India article or the British Empire article. But support for Zuggernauts suggestions is not what is the issue here. The problem is he canvassed the debates to clearly unrelated wikiprojects. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

None of the following from Canvassing#Inappropriate_notification apply to my posts:

• Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner  Not done Invited in a neutral manner per this diff [47]
• Posting messages to groups of users selected on the basis of their known opinions – for example, sending notifications only to those who supported a particular viewpoint in a previous discussion, or who state on their user page (e.g. through a userbox or user category) that they hold a particular opinion ("votestacking")[2][48] Not done (per foot note) None of my invitations have been disruptive. In fact I've not made a single disruptive edit since my first post of July 17, 2010
• Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages) Not done Never sent out an e-mail to anyone
• Posting messages to an excessively large number of individual users, or to users who have asked not to receive such messages[3] Not done I've posted messages to ZERO individual users, only three projects
• Posting messages to users or locations with no particular connection with the topic of discussion ("talk page spamming") Not done No talk page spamming
• Soliciting support other than by posting messages, such as custom signatures that automatically append some promotional message to every signed post Not done No customizations to my signature.

Let's close this and move on to editing articles. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 08:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You actually violate point number 2, which you strangely address as 'not disruptive' despite the fact that that word is not even mentioned in that point.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not really consider some of your notifications neutral. In the very link you provided to suggest that your notifications were in a neutral way you said..

"Featured article British Empire has a British_Empire#Legacy section but it does not contain the Indian view point the the empire was generally despised in India. It there are sources stating that the situation was similar in other parts of the world, like Ireland, I would like to add a {{Template:POV|POV}} tag to the article's Legacy section. Please point to sources per WP:Sources if you are aware of any. Thanks. "

That is in no way neutral. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Notifying the Irish board (why?? that has still not been explained) and not the BE wiki-project is clear violation of #2 --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 09:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You also say you have not been "Posting messages to users or locations with no particular connection with the topic of discussion ("talk page spamming")". Sorry but that is exactly what you have done. Please explain how Irish republicanism is connected to a debate on the Famine at the India article? BritishWatcher (talk) 09:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You are mis-representing my response. Please check the foot note for point #2 (See here [49]) It talks about disruption. There were two posts I made to the Irish projects - only one of those is relevant to this ANI against me. You are quoting the other one which relates to British Empire not India. This ANI is about India and the inclusion of content about the 37 million deaths. Zuggernaut (talk) 09:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Correction: this ANI is about your possible violation of WP:CANVASS. ANI is never about content, it's about behaviour. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Was there any attempt by BritishWatcher to contact Zuggernaut before coming here, as per the top of this page that clearly states Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page. This is clearly as much about BW's behaviour - ANI is not a place to censure other editors, and admins don't silence editors just because you might have a different opinion. Clearly Zuggernaut has a lot to learn, but I believe a relatively new editor should simply have been pointed to the guideline. --HighKing (talk) 12:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Having been pointed to the guideline by users here and had it explained, however, Zuggernaut has maintained that he did not violate it; that is clearly an issue. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The whole reason for raising this here was so neutral and uninvolved editors could explain to him hes not allowed to do it. Considering he still fails to see hes broken any rules despite other editors contributing to this debate, i fail to see how me trying to explain this to him would have had any positive outcome. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The only thing i thought i had to do was to post the fact I had raised this here to the user. " Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page."" is very different to "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion." BritishWatcher (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly the point. Before posting at ANI, you should have discussed this issue with the user in advance. So where did you discuss the issue with them on their user Talk page? I'd venture that the editor now feels put-upon and cornered, and is adopting an "Admit Nothing" approach - especially seeing as how this discussion has progressed to date. Taking into account that this editor is relatively new, and the fact there's no policy breach (except maybe a breach of AGF by filing this in the first place), I'd back off and be happy that the editor now knows about CANVASS (and a whole host of other guidelines and policies no doubt). If the behaviour continues, then we'll see everyone back here again no doubt. --HighKing (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a clear breach of wikipedia policies. His canvassing to the Irish republicanism wikiproject has no justification at all. As he still thinks he has done nothing wrong and you think he has done nothing wrong, clearly there is still a problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Given the amount of Unionists who also monitor that page, not to mention the odd British Nationalist, it not the most sensible way of canvassing. Seems like a storm in a tea cup to me. --Snowded ^TALK 12:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What does Irish Republicanism have to do with the debate about a famine on the India article? BritishWatcher (talk) 13:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe, BritishWatcher, that some user(s) are suggesting that selective notifciation or inclusion of "Unionist" Wiki users, Irish WP members and the like, is a way of manipulating opinion over topics on the British Empire - like an opinion poll on Stalin sampling only Ukranian farmers. Incidentally, Unionists are not Irish Republicans? --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Some unionists may be republicans, but Irish Republicanism is about support for a united Irish republic (which means Northern Ireland leaving the United Kingdom today, like the rest of Ireland did in the early 20th century), the complete opposite of British unionism. Whilst those of the Irish Republicanism wikiproject of course can act in a neutral way, that specific wikiproject by the very definition of Irish Republicanism would be one of the most hostile wikiprojects to the UK. Which is why i have big concerns that unrelated matters under discussion at British Empire and especially India were advertised at that location. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I have very high regard for Wikipedia polices, not just in the letter but in spirit as well. It appears to me that Britishwatcher, on the other hand, is on the lookout for loop holes to stall my work. I've been around since July 2010 and frankly I've been learning Wikipedia polices as I edit pages. In the first few weeks, I was quickly pointed to a few basic ones like WP:FRINGE, WP:NOR, WP:SYN, etc and the use of talk pages. This is the first time I've taken the unusual route of learning a guideline via ANI. Given my history per Wikipedia:Civility, I cannot see why Britishwatcher and I could not have sorted this out without coming here. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Because I do not believe me raising this matter with you alone would have led to any successful outcome. I thought you would consider it just my opinion of the rules and we would have ended up here anyway, this is proven by the fact your previous posts above were to disagree that there was anything wrong with your actions after being shown by others the relevant policy. All i wanted was recognition that advertising this matter in the way you did on the Irish wikiprojects (especially the Irish republicanism wikiproject) was against the rules, and to ensure it does not happen again. If you did not know the policy before then that is fine and you know not to do such things again (i fully accept that and would make no further comment on this issue), but at the moment you still seem to think this is just me looking for loopholes to stall you and not a breach of the rules. The post to the Irish Republicanism wikiproject was against the rules. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Britishwatcher - Here's how I see the situation:

It is self-evident by the fact that we are here that you clearly and demonstratively violated one of the five foundational pillars of Wikipedia - Wikipedia:Civility by not assuming good faith. On the other hand, I have not violated any of those basic Wikipedia pillars. I have never knowingly done so in the past and never intend to do so in the future. All of my posts will show that I've been polite with everyone I've encountered, that I've kept an open mind and changed my position to accept the truth if someone convinced me that I was wrong. Here's an example: Template_talk:Anglo-Indian_Wars.

It is possible, though unlikely that I violated the guideline WP:Canvass.

I would request to you to withdraw this ANI; and rather than conjecturing hypothetically, lets get back to the talk pages and address your allegation about the "inappropriate canvassing". If we determine that the canvassing was inappropriate, I will offer you an apology. In the meantime I hope you accept these from me (look left).

Zuggernaut (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You did violate WP:CANVASS, which has been explained, but apparently you did it unintentionally, so no worries really. WP:CANVASS in relation to this ANI is not about the language or civility used, but by inappropriate and per se biased posting on unrelated wikiprojects. In future its best to try and keep discussion only to relevant wikiprojects, and if you understand that then this ANI could probably be resolved. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

A discussion between you and an editor you disagree with 'to determine if you canvassed' is never going to work, and really, BW has no ability to tell other people to stop talking at this thread; indeed you have had several users, including admins(small mistake, read something wrong), tell you that you violated CANVASS, so instead of continuing to argue that you did not, why don't you just admit your fault and say you won't do it again?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"It is possible, though unlikely that I violated the guideline WP:Canvass." There is no possibility about this. you DID violate that policy, if you did not know about it previously that is fine, just agree to not do it again now you know about it. But I dont see how this can be resolved if you still think you did nothing wrong. All i want is to know that in future you will not be making those sorts of posts on unrelated wikiprojects and with questionable unneutral wording to try and draw certain groups of people into debate which could influence the outcome in a certain way which favours your position. Ive no problem completely moving on once there is recognition this was against the rules and we know it wont happen again, infact ive already spent some time this evening debating about changes to one of the articles you wanted changed to try and reach consensus. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@ChipmunkDavis, you're wrong. The guidelines are clear (unless you've recently removed the instruction to discuss the matter with the editor first, before coming here with a complaint). Also, BTW, no admins have stated he violated CANVASS, although a goodly number of editors have. Even if he did, and even if he was attempting to attract editors that might share his views to join in the discussion, the first port of call is not at ANI. There's a procedure for a reason. We must AGF - the editor wasn't aware of policy, and appears happy to avoid potential misunderstandings in future. I find this attempt to bludgeon him to "confess" as petty and distasteful. My advice in future is to open discussions first. If that fails, then follow up here. --HighKing (talk) 01:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

How on earth was what I said "petty and bludgeoning"? I did assume good faith, saying that they probably did in unintentionally, and also said that if he now knows the policy that this can be all put to rest. Neither did I condone BW's actions bringing it straight here. And no, I've removed no instructions...anywhere. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if he did not know the rules the reasons why he did what he did are clear and they are problematic. All i want to know is he understands that and in future will not canvass like that in future. If he (and you) can not accept what happened was against the rules, how can there be any confidence that it will not happen again? As for discussing the matter first, the top of this page says "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." I take that as recommended but not a strict rule unlike the post that says you Must notify individuals involved. I believe me raising this matter with him would have produced nothing and we would have ended up here anyway, this much is clear from the fact even after other editors have said it was not allowed he believes he did nothing wrong. If this is a strict rule that most be followed before any matter can be raised on this noticeboard, it should say you must discuss this matter on the persons talk page before raising it here. It does not say that but if you say it is against the rules i will be sure to talk about it first on the persons talk page, i am sorry i thought it would be better coming from neutral admins than from myself, it was obvious he would just dismiss my concerns thinking it was an attempt by me to "stall" things (as he has said in this debate here). BritishWatcher (talk) 13:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

There's been no disruption because I posted on Irish projects. We weren't voting on anything and nobody from there has arrived to the India page. It is important to follow the robust Wikipedia policies because clearly a lot of thought has gone in to them. Here's what would have happened if Britishwatcher had not violated WP:Civility

Step 1: Britishwatcher contacts me about canvassing.
Step 2: I read the guideline.
Step 3: I agree with the guideline.

1. I realize I made a mistake.
2. I stop the inappropriate canvassing (in this case it was already static when this ANI was filed)
3. Agree with Britishwatcher any other steps that need to be taken; execute those steps

OR

Step 3: I disagree with the guideline.

1. I realize there's an unintentional problem caused by me
2. I stop the inappropriate canvassing (in this case it was already static when this ANI was filed)
3. Agree with Britishwatcher any other steps that need to be taken; execute those steps
4. I initiate a discussion at the talk page of WP:CANVASS with the goal of improving the guideline
5. Upon the end of the discussion either the policy is changed or I realize I am wrong and my views have changed

Step 4:Move on to editing articles.

There are several advantages to both the scenarios other than the obvious avoidance of this ugly situation.

1. No time lost in either scenario.
2. No uncivility is encountered by either parties.
3. The ambience is polite and constructive.
4. Everybody wins

If Britishwatcher just states that he's withdrawing this, we can get over with this and focus on editing articles. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• How about this: you admit that you made a mistake and that you now understand what the canvassing policy is and stop trying to wikilawyer your way out of your responsibility for this mishegas. Then everybody goes back to editing and this thread can be closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTTHEM. This thread is about your behavior, Zug, not BW's. You say above that if BW had contacted you, you would have admitted your mistake; what's stopping you from doing so now, then? Or is the above a backhanded way of indeed admitting you made a mistake?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, canvassing by nature is disruptive; you can't just talk your way out of it by claiming your actions weren't disruptive and therefore not canvassing; it doesn't work that way.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

All i want is for you to recognise that you are not meant to canvass in the way you did and say it will not happen again. That is it, then we can all move on. But if you still think you have done nothing wrong in this case i worry it may happen in another debate in future. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I have requested feedback from Wikipedia_talk:Canvassing and I will wait before I make any further comments on this case. Ideally I would have preferred to go to those talk pages after this ANI was withdrawn but it seems the withdrawal will not happen. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Zuggernaut's request for feedback [50] includes a request to allow people to only bring people to support their POV, "Each party involved in a discussion would ideally like to invite the entire pool of users who are likely to support their position." If you ask me that's an admission he knows that he only canvassed to support his position here. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Z's posting on Talk:Canvassing appears to me to be simply another attempt at Wikilawyering. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on Cryptozoology articles

An uninvolved Admin is needed to review the history for the page Bigfoot, as there appears to be a degree of edit waring occurring regarding alleged bias in the article. One side is accusing the other of not adhering to a NPOV, the other is arguing that the views the other side wants inserted are Fringe theories. The matter was brought to my attention when I picked up the case from the MedCab docket. I would like an uninvolved Admin to determine if short-term page or topic bans are needed, or possibly a 1RR. I would very much like to avoid this case seeing arbitrationRonk01 talk 02:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Really now, edit warring over Bigfoot? WP:LAME is thataway. → → → Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Ronk for looking into this. However, I would disagree with your assessment of the situation, and encourage you (and anyone else investigating this issue) to dig a little deeper with respect to the involved editors. Based on article history and the discussion page, it appears at the Bigfoot article 2 editors (User:Gniniv and User:Timpicerilo) are attempting to change the article from reflecting that the vast scientific consensus is that Bigfoot is not real to more POV weasel wording which gives increased credence to its existence without valid sourcing. When these editors were reverted by a number of others, they (very briefly) took their objection to the talk page before User:Gniniv decided to file a mediation request claiming bias.

I don't have any experience with Timpicerilo, so I can't speak to his edits. However, I do have a great deal of experience with Gniniv, and his history should very clearly attest to this sort of disruptive behavior on a variety of articles over the past number of months. Rather than adhering to WP:BRD, he appears to be now engaging in "BRM", where as soon as his edits get reverted as opposed to consensus, he immediately goes to mediation. His last RfM, which nearly resulted in him getting topic banned, should paint a pretty clear picture of his behavior and the impact it's had on the other editors who have attempted to work with him. This last debacle resulted in him sanctioning himself from contentious articles to avoid being subject to administrator intervention, but his self imposed sanction apparently didn't last very long.

There is nothing wrong with the Bigfoot article (at least which can't be solved by collaborative editing from good faith editors), and sanctions imposed on the article would be inappropriate and unhelpful. The problem is a disruptive editor. I've been considering taking this to ANI for some time, but I've been doing my best to avoid it. Alas, now that we're here... perhaps now is the time. I'm going to inform some other editors who have experience with this issue of this discussion. In the meantime, I would recommend reading through the current MedCab talk page, the last RfM, and (if you have the time) this user's history of almost entirely reverted POV edits and disruptive editing. Far too much editor time has been wasted on this already... I think it's time this comes to a close. Jess_talk|_edits 02:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Having been invited here for some reason that I am not clear. I will state that User:Gniniv is prone to running to mediation when (s)he feels that it his/her way this one is a fine example. BTW the dispute is over Fringe Theories at bigfoot? I have to ask what qualifies as fringe when talking about Bigfoot? IMHO It would be very hard to come up with something too fringe for the Bigfoot article...BB7 (talk) 03:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, clearly, the whole idea of Bigfoot's existence is fringe, but the point is that when Wikipedia deals with fringe theories, it must treat them as fringe, not as legitimate minority scientific positions. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Also directed here, but I also have extensive experience with Gniniv. I don't see why another ANI about this editor is necessary. Cryptozoology is pseudoscience and we have a general sanction on pseudoscience. Trying to make the Bigfoot article sound more like bigfoot is real despite the mountains of facts it's not, is clearly editing against wikipedia policies. A year-long-block according to the general sanction would be well within order. — raekyt 09:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Is that you proposing a year's community ban of Gniniv, Raeky? If so, I support. I have studied the recent History of Bigfoot, with its interesting edit summaries, and Gniniv is a disruptive editor, quite impervious to the arguments of others, and editing entirely according to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or Argumentum ad nauseam. The same is true for User:Timpicerilo, though he doesn't seem to have as bad a history of disruption. For him a few months' page ban on Bigfoot-related articles (there is for example the POV fork Evidence regarding Bigfoot), would be appropriate, IMO. Bishonen | talk 13:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC).

• Agree that Gnininv appears to be unable to grasp NPOV as it applies to fringe subjects. In general, the subject of Bigfoot has attracted a handful of editors lobbying for more sympathetic coverage of the proponents, as evidenced by Evidence regarding Bigfoot and Formal studies of Bigfoot. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• There are four Bigfoot articles? The mind boggles. Similar problems at Cryptozoology. Over at Flat Earth I find this [51]. He indeed has problems with NPOV (see his edits on topics dealing with evolution as well), but also with WP:V and WP:OR. See my edit here [52] where he had written "His contention that Ancient Egyptian chronologies need to be revised is shared by the British historian, Peter James" in an article on a creationist archaeologist, referencing the claim to a book by Peter James. However, James had not made the claim, David Kyrle Down had (I know his brother off-wiki and get their e-publication, just as an aside) and I had to edit the claim to make it clear that it was Down making the comparison, which isn't quite as impressive. :-) It would matter less if he hadn't been lecturing another editor recently claiming that another editor didn't understand what he called our core policy, WP:V (I did point out that we have 3 core policies which shouldn't be considered in isolation). He suggested the editor create a new article, Criticism of Bigfoot. And his recent request for mediation -- I was gobsmacked by that. Dougweller (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oh yeah, we need a wildly POV Criticism of Bigfoot, why not? We have a bio of Jon-Erik Beckjord, the "interdimensional" alien Bigfoot "theorist", anybody remember that stubborn edit warrior? (Deceased in 2008.) "If it's far-fetched and unproved, Beckjord buys it." We have Bigfoot trap, articles on the Wild Man of the Navidad and the shy Mogollon Monster with its bloodcurdling scream. And a crapload of stubs about single Bigfoot books and Bigfoot movies. But this is the funny part: we have Bigfoot in popular culture ! I mean, what the ¶‰¢¥”"#€% kind of culture do the Bigfoots in the other articles belong to? Bishonen | talk 18:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC).
  • Native American culture, for one. And then there is actual North American folklore, as opposed to the crap Hollywood churns out; for example, as a kid we told each other that the Bigfoots that lived in the nearby mountains were the same as the Tibetan Yeti. (Not sure if that proves anything other than we Pacific Northwesterners take the stories far less seriously than some.) Of course, to write those articles would require some actual research & digging thru academic journals like Journal of American Folklore -- but I digress. -- llywrch (talk) 23:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The same as the Tibetan Yeti? Well, you got that part right, both a lot of codswollop. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you always that nasty about people's beliefs, traditions, & entertainment? I was merely pointing out that there is a lot more to the topic -- most of which is unrelated to this dispute. -- llywrch (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've made a couple of edits in the one article(1), and there are numerous problems that need the attention of fresh hands. 99.141.241.60 (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• To be fair, Bigfoot may be fringe, but its fringe with a following. There have been books on the existence of Bigfoot, a Discovery Channel Special (which found DNA that suggested that it might just exist). I know I saw an episode of Rugrats dedicated to Bigfoot. And this is just stuff that I have seen and read and I'm not exactly a follower of the phenomena. (The book was given to me)--*Kat* (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• I just wanted to point out that unless Bigfoot already has discretionary sanctions attached to it, administrators can't initiate topic or page bans, only blocks for misbehavior. The place to suggest such bans is actually here (or WP:AN). -- Atama頭 22:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Depends on how widely you interpret the wide latitude given in the general sanction for pseudoscience. My understanding on that GS was that any article related to pseudoscience would be under it's umbrella and Cryptozoology is definitely a candidate in my book as pseudoscience. Even if an admin doesn't want to go that route I think after all the past trouble we've had with User:Gniniv that a community ban is in order and should be brought up. — raekyt 02:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Nessie must be feeling sad with all this attention being paid to BigFoot here. :( . Count Iblis (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Maybe, maybe not. Afterall, Bigfoot may have all these articles but Nessie has Twilight. :-D --*Kat* (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I am more than willing to accept General sanctions on myself as long as it is applied unilaterally to other editors involved as well....--Gniniv (talk) 04:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I also want to remind you guys as you come to the decision that the bias problem is prevalent on both sides of the issue. Bigfoot really needs work before I think it can qualify as WP:NPOV. All the efforts involved so far have been editors fighting over its status as a "fringe" theory while the actual underlying bias problems are overlooked. I think a fair solution to approach this is just to put a notice of WP:General Sanctions on the article, and watch the editors involved for edit warring and WP:Good Faith violations. I know that a majority of editors think that this is "fringe" theory versus science, but it is really a dispute over the integrity and effectiveness of our dispute resolution process. All I can say in response to those who would have my account banned is that my activity has had the intention of a WP:NPOV presentation, and as a relatively new editor, I have worked towards lowering my own personal bias and learning to work collabartively towards a compromise with more experienced editors' assistance. If this ANI notice leads to my permanent ban from Wikipedia, all I can say is I have thouroghly enjoyed the challenging and competitive work towards increasing the quality of this online encyclopedia and I thank all the editors (such as User:Mann Jess and User:Twinsday) for their help and support as we worked towards that goal. I hope eventually that a less biased WP:V Bigfoot article will be the result of our work.--Gniniv (talk) 04:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Gniniv, has anyone pointed out that your sig is unreadable? That doesn't help your case here. -- llywrch (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Bigfoot problem

I think that a significant amount of effort has been expended trying to improve blanket statements of majority consensus on these articles (Bigfoot and Cryptozoology) by myself, and due to the fact this is seen as violating WP:NPOV (though in my book I am merely trying to give coverage to a significant minority view) I am imposing a one month ban on myself for these articles. I hope my absence will inspire others to work towards removing rule of the majority problems and WP:Systematic bias without having me to blame as the scapegoat. I appreciate those editors who are of a similar mindset.--Gniniv (talk) 04:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You still don't recognize the problem. Considering I've spent months working with you nearly every day, I'm at a total loss as to how to express it better than I already have. This isn't about the Bigfoot article... it's about your approach to editing on wikipedia. You are not working collaboratively with other editors, and it has become a serious problem. As much as you talk about "overcoming personal biases", and "working towards NPOV", you are actually decreasing the neutrality of fringe articles via weasel wording and a gross misunderstanding of WP:Weight. However, this would not be a problem, since other editors have always been quick to revert you and discuss your edits in depth. The problem arises when you are unwilling or unable to understand the issues you're introducing, and when you insist on continually reintroducing them over and over again.

I mean, seriously Gniniv... I don't know how many editors have told you how many times that changing "scientists" to "mainstream scientists" in fringe articles is not increasing neutrality. You've been doing it for months! Every time an editor tells you it's not acceptable, you say "ok, I understand", and then I catch you doing it again a day later. I've played through dozens of possible explanations for your behavior in my head, in a desperate attempt to assume good faith... from a language barrier you hide extremely well, to multiple personalities (or roommates) editing under the same account... but none of them do it justice.

I would really love to see you contribute positively Gniniv. I really would... but after all I've tried, I see no way that's going to happen. Dozens of editors have worked with you for extended periods of time to help you adjust, and your behavior has only gotten worse. This new trend of opening mediation requests as soon as your edits get reverted is beyond disruptive. So were your repeated GA nominations of start-class articles a month or so ago. Nearly 98% of your edits to article space get reverted, and in all your time here, that number hasn't even begun to go down. I'd ask you if you understand what I'm telling you... but I know from experience you'd just say "yes" and the problems would persist. So... what would you recommend we do, Gniniv? Jess_talk|_edits 05:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

My conclusion is (in WP:GOODFAITH) that I can't edit (with my convictions) in a way that absolutely conforms to the WP:Systematic bias present on Wikipedia. The simple truth is that I am editing with pretty much the same methodology as many editors, though my philosophical perspective does not conform to the majority. Since Wikipedia is (in practice, though not in policy) a democracy when it comes to editing (whichever view has the most support survives-e.g. Natural Selection), my POV is disfavorable to the majority of editors, and is therefore removed. I agree that many (most when I first started editing) of my edits are in need of improvement and I thank all the editors who helped mentor me through my first months of WP:TE and unsourced contributions. Since my worldview (WP:WORLDVIEW) is different from the overwhelming majority of editors, the overwhelming majority of my edits are reverted, even when they are properly sourced to their authors. I have no malice against Wikipedia for being this way (Its one of the oft-overlooked consequences of a "free" Encyclopedia) but something obviously needs to change. I was hoping my edits would draw attention to the fact that a large amount of Systematic bias is present on this site, and hoping that it would induce organizational changes to benefit significant minority viewpoints. As it seems the rule-by-majority still stands, I will bow out of editing until furthur notice. You will see that my user has been retired. I am proud of my accomplishments (the revival of WP:CRYZOO being at the top of the list) and I enjoyed the critical and challenging enviroment Wikipedia offered. All I can say is that I held to my convictions and I hope that what I did will inspire others to do the same. Finus...--Gniniv (talk) 06:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You still have a serious problem with the use of sources. As you know, you've just had an edit reverted by two editors (one of them me, the other Jess), at Objections to Evolution, where you were adding a quote (ironically by someone described as an anti-Creationist) that didn't discuss evolution. You were adding this presumably to make a point about how scientists work, as that was the thrust of the quote, presumably as a way (the 2nd time) as a comment on scientific acceptance. I've commented recently on your use of sources that aren't specifically discussing the subject. It's your right to have convictions, but you still have to follow our policies and guidelines, and it seems that you can't do this. Dougweller (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You're still missing the point... but you've clarified for me what the problem has been these past few months. You think wikipedia is biased, and the editors here share that bias... and so your goal has been to come in, guns ablaze, and single handedly fix that bias yourself... consensus be damned. That's not how wikipedia works. As I've explained to you repeatedly, wikipedia is collaborative; that it is free doesn't mean anyone can come in and own any article they disagree with. The third part of the BRD cycle is of tantamount importance, and it involves being able to hear and understand the objections raised by other editors... which you've universally failed to do.

This inability has lead you to grossly misunderstand WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, to the extent that you feel every point of view you can imagine should be given equal time, even without so much as reliable sources demonstrating prominence. I can't begin to explain to you (yet again) why this is wrong, since your fundamental assumptions about wikipedia, and your reasons for editing here, are so diametrically opposed to our mission. If you feel that you need to leave wikipedia for good, then by all means... but based on your previous history of "leaving" articles and then returning almost immediately, I'm not fully convinced it'll take. That said, I'd like to advise you that if you do decide to return in a few months, I'd be more than happy to welcome you back and work with you to edit constructively... with the understanding that if you return to these old habits or demonstrate you don't get why your behavior has been unconstructive, I'm not going to just "reset" and spend another 6 months assuming good faith.

Whether or not I see you back again, good luck. Jess_talk|_edits 17:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Counti Iblis posting email - breaching confidentiality/copyright

As raised in the section above by Tim Shuba [53]. On User:Count Iblis/WikiLeaks, Iblis posted some or all of an email sent by Jimbo to Brews Ohare. Even though the content is not particularly contentious, the principle with emails has always been that content can only be posted on wikipedia with the permission of the sender. As Iblis proclaims the email to be confidential, I doubt he has the permission of the sender.

I have removed the text [54] which I suppose technically ought to be revdeleted. Offenders have been blocked for this action. Count Iblis should have a slapped wrist at least (it's the principle of the thing rather than a massive BLP violation in this case). Anyone care to administer the WP:TROUT?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted the page per WP:IAR, since I considered the potential privacy violations were not covered in the drop down down menu and I was using admin privilege; thus restoration upon community consensus or policy basis requires no further reference to me. I have also not enacted any sanction or warning to Counti Iblis, as we are both partipants in a current ArbCom case. Again, this should have no bearing on any decisions made by the community in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to state that I have not had many dealings with Count Iblis, but my experiences with him have been that he is a sincere person and genuinely interested in creating a reliable encyclopedia. While not everything he does might be 100% decent, I am sure he has had a good reason for his behavior and that a serious and open minded conversation with him will prove to be enough. --Faust (talk) 13:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It should be recalled that Count Iblis' advocacy for Brews Ohare (with or without Brews' consent or encouragement) in the weeks and months following the Speed of Light arbitration was sufficiently disruptive in style and tone that the ArbCom took the extremely unusual step of barring Count Iblis from continuing (Motion 4). The advocacy restriction expired at the end of June, simultaneously with the expiration of Brews' topic ban. Unfortunately, Brews' conduct on returning wasn't compatible with Wikipedia norms, and his topic ban was restored. If Count Iblis has returned to disruptive (and counterproductive) advocacy on behalf of Brews – or other editors, see #What happened to Tisane? above – then it may be appropriate to contemplate (or re-enact) a suitable formal remedy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense, the motion was not passed because of disruptive behavior, at least from me. It was passed (without communiy discussion and input on its merits) to calm down the situation. ArbCom can take such rather unusual measures. It has nothing per se to do with disruption. Count Iblis (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Speed_of_light which was already filed; if a participant has returned to disruptive advocacy, that would be the best place to point it out. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Putting that email on Wikipedia was i.m.o. the right thing to do as it was directly relevant to the passing of two motions by ArbCom. Everytime that issue comes up, you'll have people who say that they don't understand why ArbCom passed that motion shortening Brews' topic ban. If I say that they did that on the instructions by Jimbo, there is disbelief because Jimbo usually does not interfere in ArbCom cases. Some weeks ago, someone demanded a link to my assertion when Brews was discussed here on AN/I and that issue came up. That's what motivated me to put that particular email on Wikipedia.

A big problem here is that on the log page of the ArbCom case, there is no transparancy regarding the motion, while that log page has the appearance of being very tranparant as every other minute development is logged. This leads to that scepticism when someone makes a statement that you can't verify on that log page. Count Iblis (talk) 14:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't the simplest thing be to ask JW or the arbcom to confirm that they acted after JW asked them to look at it again, who knows maybe even amending the case to make it clear, rather then posting a private email without permission? Nil Einne (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I guess that's a better thing to do. Count Iblis (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Count Iblis does not have a history of counterproductive advocacy for Brews

TenOffAllTrades wrote in an edit summary that "I have a history of counterproductive advocacy for Brews". But what Ten conveniently forgets is that when everyone was geting sick and tired about incidents involving Brews after the ArbCom case (that case was supposed to settle the matter once and for all), I came up with some proposals and tried to get support from Ten and others here. I was attacked for doing that and no constructive way forward was possible because of the battlefield atmosphere surrounding this issue.

Consider e.g. what I was proposing: The topic ban would be relaxed so that Brews could contribute via his userspace, he would operate under some sort of mentoring agreement. So Brews would make proposed edits to an article on his userspace after he gets permission. It would be up to other editors to use what Brews has produced for Wiki-articles. Brews agreed with me that this would be a compromize he was willing to accept.

Clearly, had this been implemented, Brews would have contributed a lot to physics articles without causing any disruption at all to this day. But that's not what happened. ArbCom lifted the topic ban and decided to restrict me and others from commenting on Brews.

Then for Ten to bring up the fact that after the topic ban was lifted, Brews got in trouble again and raising the possiblity that I could have been invloved here, is just ridiculous. The whole dispute with me in this matter was always that according to Ten and others, rules are rules and whatever ArbCom had decided should stand, period. Me making proposals was disruptive simply for violating this dogma. Well, they've had there way, and it didn't work. What about that??? Count Iblis (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Lest anyone think that there is a coverup here or that I said or did anything inappropriate requiring a "wikileaks" expose, here is the full text of what I wrote in that email:

I've let the ArbCom know I want them to look more closely at this. I believe, and this is just a personal opinion from watching all this from a bit of a distance, that David Tombe's rather vigorous and wordy advocacy on your behalf has done a great deal more harm than good, actually.

I stand by that fully, and it isn't even remotely scandalous in any way. To claim that it is evidence of me instructing the ArbCom to do anything is ludicrous. I asked them to take a closer look. This is not unusual, and it is a role that I take that I am proud of - encouraging and coaching the ArbCom to be cautious and thoughtful. (Not that they need me to do it, as they are cautious and thoughtful by nature. Yet, I think it is good for me to advise, and particularly when difficult matters are brought to my attention, I hope that my advice sometimes is useful in helping to bring about a reflective moment of consideration. Our work is important.)

That David Tombe's vigorous and wordy advocacy was counter-productive is, as I said, a personal opinion, and one that I would not have made public. It was a private remark intended to be helpful to Brews Ohare. I don't have my archives handy, but I'm pretty sure that I said to David Tombe's face that his many voluminous and lengthy emails to me (filled with strong accusations and anger) and others were not helping anything. I don't think either Brews or David were in any way scandalized or offended by this email, and so I can't conceive of why it should have been made public as if it were some kind of expose of something.

Count Iblis, I think you owe me an apology, not so much for posting the email (though that was wrong) but for implying that it was some kind of "wikileak" of any importance.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy, please strike your request for an apology. It is not appropriate to ask for one. Let the other person apologize if they wish to. Only then does an apology have any value. (It is however proper to say something like "I think you made a mistake when you...") Jehochman ^Talk 20:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh please. If Jimmy wants to ask for an apology, let him. Why do you feel the need to micromanage his personal interactions? Fences&Windows 01:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman is advocating on behalf of me :) . But I'll say that I apologize for having caused any misrepresentations by posting the email. Count Iblis (talk) 04:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, When I saw your letter, the only conclusion which I drew was that you were misinformed about the whole situation. It's hard to see how anybody could believe that Brews's predicament had been made worse by my advocacy. There were a series of administrative actions regarding Brews from about February through to April of this year, and I did speak up on Brews's behalf at all of those actions. But if I hadn't spoken up, I doubt if it would have made any difference whatsoever. This whole problem has been badly mishandled from the outset. Compare it with the manner in which the Monty Hall problem is being handled. As a matter of curiosity, I took a look at the Monty Hall problem a few weeks ago. There are some editors there who have been pushing a minority point of view over a long period of time, and never have any of them been treated in the way that Brews or myself were treated over the argument at 'speed of light'. The mediation committee have now become involved at Monty Hall, yet that option was never on the table for 'speed of light'. You mention about the anger. Yes, sure there was anger. There was anger because of the persistent lie that those who held the point of view that Brews and I held were being disruptive. There is a major distinction between expressing a point of view on a talk page on the one hand, and being disruptive on the other hand. And as regards Count Iblis, he didn't even agree with the point of view that Brews and I were advocating, yet he had the honour and common decency to speak out for our basic rights. He saw that the treatment of Brews and myself was wrong, and that it had no precedent in similar situations at climate change, thermodynamics, or other articles that involved prolonged disputues. It would be much more profitable if the administration would admit its mistakes, rectify the injustices, and move on. David Tombe (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

... yeah. I think you just underscored Jimbo's point. You might want to stop "helping" for now. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Why would Jimbo think that it's necessary to defend himself from "scandalous" behavior and take the trouble to assert that his “instructing the ArbCom to do anything is ludicrous” ? I'd hope that in fact he would feel very comfortable doing just that: telling ArbCom when they have made inappropriate decisions. It's odd that Jimbo would want to back away from this suggestion that he is a moderating influence over ArbCom excesses.

Of course, as a matter of politeness, and as all agree, Jimbo should have been consulted before posting his innocuous communication, but for Jimbo to take the view that this posting placed him in a very, very bad light is, well, most peculiar. Such an exaggeration appears very out of character and devised to make the posting into a cause célèbre when it is only a faux pas. Brews ohare (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say the posting placed me in a bad light - I said the opposite. My email was harmless. I reposted it to prevent any casual observers from drawing the conclusion that some inappropriate email from me was being "leaked" and then censored by the community.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This clarification is helpful. The posting was impolite, but harmless, save for the remote eventuality that a casual observer unaware of context might erroneously draw mistaken conclusions that the posting was some "tip of the iceberg". Brews ohare (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Count Iblis has apologized to Jimbo, are we okay here now? I think this was all a misunderstanding but things look to be cleared up. -- Atama頭 21:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Assumptions of bad faith and Battlefield mentality

Unresolved

Please could an uninvolved admin please speak to Wikifan12345 about this? Thank you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Spartaz, I agree his comments were completely unacceptable, and I've left him a warning. PhilKnight (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Apologies. I do find the deletion of 3 reliably-sourced articles with IMO weak rationales quite troubling. I'll strike my comment if that's all right. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

In her/his "apology", Wikifan12345 attacked Spartaz once again. I don't think the warning got through to Wikifan12345. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

How so? Criticizing Qatar is now an attack on a user who lives there? Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"How so" you ask? So so: Writing ... if that's all right as an apology shows you're not apologizing. You're washing your hands (while smearing an other persons coat: 'with IMO weak rationales'). Then you stroked this (not pointed to by the attacked admin btw; it was even on his talkpage), followed by smearing here by a new writing about 'tacit approval or at least indifference [re Qatar politics]'. Malik Shabazz was all right when referring to your "apology" in quotes. -DePiep (talk) 00:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you are guys are taking this too far. "If that's all right" is an honest statement. I wanted to strike my bad faith comments, is that all right? Does that offend you DePiep? Instead of cherry-picking the apology, maybe you should read on:

It was horribly for me to do this, I'm just not a huge fan of countries where slavery is legal and religious minorities are hunted. Again, apologies

I explained why I dubiously connected the admin's presence in Qatar with his IMO "weak rationale" for deleting the 3 articles. Clearly I'm not the only one who thought this considering there is lengthy discussion here where several editors express similar complaints. It was wrong of me to see the admin's presence in Qatar as affecting his judgement when it comes to Israel/Palestine. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That discussion actually demonstrates the complete opposite of what you're asserting. While a number of people in that discussion disagree with Spartaz's decision, and stated that the application of policies and guidelines was incorrectly done, nobody has agreed with you that Spartaz's nationality had any influence on the decision. Quite the opposite, one editor even stated "Reading this discussion, I see quite a bit of bad faith and personal attacks directed at the closing admin." So even there I see complaints about your behavior. -- Atama頭 21:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

typical wikifan behaviour, if i may say something to that case. he exploits every possibility to provoke other users and then performs the innocent one. in this thread one can find also some examples.--Severino (talk) 08:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

re Wikifan behaviour example #4 above: If I took it too far, I apologize. I was distracted by the red horns and the smell of sulphur in your aura. -DePiep (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Some time ago Wikifan was banned. In the discussion leading to that here, I commented that he be put under a mentoring agreement. I also invoked that he was just 14 years old and he could perhaps learn a lot more than what you would typically expect in similar cases involving older people. Then I was ridiculed for making that proposal. He was banned but apparently later returned without an restrictions or mentoring agreements.

Congratulations! Well done Admins and keep up the criticisms on me like right now in the treads below! Count Iblis (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"He exploits every possibility to provoke other users and then performs the innocent one." What does this mean? Are you saying I'm baiting editors and then playing the victim? If that were the case, I'd be sending editors I disagree with to enforcement noticeboards, not trying to find a compromise over a potentially problematic contribution(s). Like I said before, I think you guys are taking this too far. I apologized numerous times, explained my behavior, and apologized again. The offended admin hasn't disputed the sincerity of my apology. I don't think this incident falls under general sanctions policy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

If Wikifan were a non-Zionist behaving like this, he would be blocked immediately. His attack on the Qatari admin was particularly noxious, when the background of many obviously biased Israeli editors suggests they are covering up for crimes to which they themselves are linked. 86.181.226.123 (talk) 07:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Just for the record, I am not Qatari. I live in Qatar but I'm British. Thank you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Aorist

Some admin attention is needed here and here. Move-warring by User:Pmanderson. ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

*eyroll* we just got through an RFC/U with this individual BB7 (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed there is attention needed.
• User:Kwamikagami has just moved the page to Aorist, in the middle of a move discussion. He has left the talk page behind, which makes this slightly less disruptive to the move request, but he has also used admin powers in a dispute in which he is involved, and on a page on which he has revert warred repeatedly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• If this war continues, perhaps move protection would be merited? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Kwamui has just "closed" the move request after less than a day. Can we have this patent abuse undone please? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
• Sep isn't a newbie. He knows better. He also knows that I reverted his move warring before seeing the move request; IMO it would've been silly to leave it open after restoring the article. — kwami (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Kwamikagami knows better than to close a move request in which he is involved; he knows better than to close a requested move in 24 hours. He should be penalized and the move request reopened. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, come off it. You should have made the move request, esp. per WP:BOLD after your first move was reverted by Maunus. Taivo only made a restore request because he couldn't override your move warring; I reverted it immediately upon seeing the edit summary, and only then saw the move request. This isn't your article. You have been here long enough to know this. — kwami (talk) 19:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Kwami is correct. PMAnderson moved this controversial article without getting consensus and was reverted by Maunus. PMAnderson then began edit warring by moving the article two more times against consensus despite Maunus' warnings to stop his edit war. I initiated the Move Request only because, not being an admin, I was unable to revert PMAnderson's third move. My first attempt to override PMAnderson's actions was a 3RR report, but since he had technically only reverted twice, it was denied. I then filed the Request for Move in order to get the article back to its original title. Kwami was completely in his right to revert PMAnderson's edit warring and to restore the status quo title. --Taivo (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

These two do little but revert war to impose a POV on this article; see its history. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

But that POV is the consensus POV of every editor involved with the page except for you. You also need to learn to read the article's history better--there are at least three or four other editors who have also reverted your single-minded edits. --Taivo (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Diffs, please. In mere fact. I have been reverted by Kwami and Taivo only. Their obscure and inaccurate text has been objected to by Cynwolfe, Akhilleus, Wareh, Amphitryonades and Radagast3 (and I'm sure I'm forgetting somebody). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

What a limited memory you are displaying. Marknutley and your move war with Maunus, and that's just within the last 48 hours. And the "objections" you refer to are not due to content, but to writing style. Your objections have nothing to do with writing style and everything to do with pushing your own POV. You still stand absolutely alone in your POV edits. And you continue to use tags as a disruptive edit warring tool. --Taivo (talk) 06:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• The aorist inflection is a controversial topic? Welcome to Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Welcome to the world at large. ☺ This comment makes for interesting reading. In truth, this isn't a controversy that's limited to Wikipedia. I can point you to several sources that document disagreement, from the past two centuries alone, over what the aorist connotes. There's a whole sub-branch of Biblical scholarship, for example, that deals with the use of the aorist in the New Testament and what precisely the writers meant by it. Uncle G (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I'd believe that there was a controversy over it if I actually understood what the word meant. (I'm still not even certain if it is a tense, mood, or voice -- or something else entirely. And no, please don't explain it to me here; let's stay on topic.) Then again, I know lots of blood have been spilled over the nature of Christ, & I have a hard time figuring out just what the importance of all of that hair-splitting is. (And gain, please don't explain it to me here.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Can you believe anyway, without understanding? ☺ Because this definitely is one of those things that has its roots in the world at large, and isn't solely something that Wikipedians randomly decided to disagree over. The real problem here, of course, is that the Wikipedia editors have, here, rather lost track of the fact that the whole point of the exercise is to have a nice encyclopaedia article about the aorist, from which people in your position can learn, explaining the thing from the ground up. Uncle G (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and Harassment by History2007

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

---

This editor has been following me today on Catholic articles and reverting all my edits. Just now, over on Catholic Mariology he reverted all my work with one revert.

Revert on Catholic Mariology: [55]

At first I thought I'd deleted something by accident until I realized they were still following after I'd asked them to stop on my talk page.

[56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66]

Reverts on Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic)

[67] [68] [69] [70]

They also followed me to WikiProject Catholicism

[71]

They are back on my talk page again right now. I've worked hard on these articles today and now it's reverted. Please help. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 06:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

In addition, on the Catholic beliefs on the power of prayer talk page, History2007 moved my posts without my consent and fitted them into a section as if I was answering his questions. [72]. He has done this on Leo XIII's talk page as well, and he's also restated my posts in 'straw man' type arguments. There are also numerous uncivil posts on the Catholic beliefs talk page as well as spread over several other articles. I can get diffs if necessary. Any relief you can provide would be most appreciated. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 06:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see administrative action to address this problem. History2007 has been getting away with this bad behavior for far too long, and he's chased many good faith editors away from this topic with his POV pushing and edit warring. Viriditas (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please see: User_talk:Jclemens#Admin_help_requested who was aware of the Afd on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catholic beliefs on the power of prayer. This flurry of edits started after the 4th vote on that Afd was a "keep". So following User_talk:Malke_2010#WP:WIKIHOUND_warning I already asked Jclemens to comment, given that he is aware of the Afd situation that gave rise to this. It would also be good to ask User:Moonriddengirl to comment given that she is an Admin, Malke's "mentor" and advised her against her following me. History2007 (talk) 07:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Please also see: User_talk:Jclemens#Admin_help_requested where he already commented on the issues. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

User History does appear to have been following Malke round and mass reverting her alterations claiming this and that, long term stable and such, it can be very upsetting to have your good faith work mass reverted like that. Off2riorob (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Article histories will show that User:History2007 was a prior contributor on the articles in question. Having worked with User:Malke 2010 for some time, I also suspect that these two share an interest in the subject that is going to bring them into contact again and again. They also have a fundamental difference of perspective that needs to be calmy and civilly worked out. I'd like to leave a more detailed comment here as Malke's mentor but I am unexpectedly dealing with a copyright "emergency". :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, copyright emergency in lull. :) I suspect there are some misunderstandings here. For the two articles in question, User:History2007 was the immediate prior editor to User:Malke 2010: [73]; [74]. It is entirely reasonable that he would have been watching these articles. Too, a look at his Wikipedia talk space edits demonstrates that he didn't need to follow Malke 2010 to arrive at WikiProject Catholicism. They also are obviously using different definitions of "rmv", which per Wikipedia:Glossary#R entry typically means either "remove vandalism" or "remove." I suspect that is the basis for History2007's assertion that the articles were stable ([75]); Malke2010 seems to me to have meant it in the second sense ([76]). I suspect that they each are feeling significantly bruised at this point, History2007 because his work has been undone in a way that he felt implied it was done in bad faith and Malke 2010 because her work has been undone in a way she feels dismissive. I don't doubt they both feel harassed. I think these two need to come to some accord in the way they will work together and that History2007's suggestions below are sensible. Alternatively, I think they could benefit from mediation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Seeking WP:CALM

I thought about this issue and my suggestion is:

• Malke and I voluntarily agree not to do any edits to Wikipedia for 3 days, except for reverts of clear vandalism by other, unrelated users, or developments within our own user spaces, or talk pages. This will achieve some calm and give me time to work on new "fun articles" without getting into debates.

• We somehow get the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catholic beliefs on the power of prayer resolved in the near future, say 3-4 days.

• The next topic will be the page Catholic devotions for which we will ask for a 3rd opinion. We will only ask for one 3rd opinion at a time. And Talk:Catholic_devotions#content_not_relevant was the next source of dispute after the Afd item.

• I will seek a 3rd opinion on the suitability of the 2 disputed sources, Ann Ball and Catholic Encyclopedia on Talk:Catholic_devotions#content_not_relevant. Those 2 books are the subject of disagreement.

Then we can seek 3rd opinions, one page at a time. I think this voluntary 3rd opinion path will be the best way to stop a heated waste of time for everyone. History2007 (talk) 10:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Calm is good. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to speak on behalf of History2007. The encounters I have had with him were nice, friendly and focused on constructive edits. Although he clearly does not take enough time to explain himself I have only known him to mean well. --Faust (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It's good to know you've had good experiences with him. :) I think the real question here, though, relates to the interaction between the two of them and how it should move forward. I don't think admin intervention is appropriate at this point; I think they have considerable more room to explore dispute resolution options between themselves before we hit the point of sanctions. History's suggestion of calm and perhaps some voluntary distancing seems a good one, but I am still inclined to believe (as I said above) that some voluntary mediation might have the best long-term effect. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, MRG, but I think that your being an admin has stopped others from coming forward here. And SarekOfVulcan, excuse me, but you came to my talk page with a petty concern which means you've obviously been watching the gross incivility of History2007 with no concern.

MRG, please look over these pages and then come back and look at the "instructions" History2007 has posted on this thread. First, he always break up a thread so others won't notice what has gone before. Second, he sets rules and makes demands. If you honestly examine what he's been doing over several wiki pages, you will see he's a disruptive, uncivil, bully, and if other editors had been doing this, they would have been blocked. I can't imagine Toddst1 putting up with this if I'd done half of what is posted up there. History2007 should be blocked.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

oh so very not helpful
Block Support. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

A divergence from the current line of discussion, but I have had issues with History2007 as well. I am an illustrator on Wikipedia, painting coats of arms and trying to add more art to this encyclopedia. However, History2007 has issue with me adding my paintings to Wikipedia, despite the fact I only add images where there are one or where I only replace poor quality clip art versions. History2007 and his two supporting editors have forum shopped, trying to ban me at the conflict of interest and original research notice boards simultaneously, both boards which ignored them. We agreed to have the heraldic WikiProject unofficially arbitrate, but that decision was ignored when there was no flaws found in my argument and History2007's argument was found unwarranted. So History2007 declared and informed me that an admin he picked would hand down a decision, but that admin also sided against History2007 and, again, the decision was ignored. See Talk:Pope Leo XIII for a bulk of the argument. Elsewhere on theOur Lady of Mount Carmel article, I have seen History2007 request protection to avoid discussion with an IP user. There is no reasoning with History2007, he is hypocritical and finds technicalities to ignore any compromises he agreed to (I am under the oppression that were the opinions to go in his favour, he would declare these binding decisions). A block would be appropriate, I would suggest three days, to give History2007 enough time to reflect on his actions and realize that his lone dissent can not impede the community and consensus. My apologies for the lengthy entry, thank you for your time and patience. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 03:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry Mt Liptak, but again I do not follow your logic. There have been as many breaches of Wikipedia policy in what you discuss, as there have been copyright violations on the Afd, namely zero. No copyright violations and no breaches, but enough of that, the reason I bothered to respond to it is that the Leo XIII issue brings about a key policy shortage within Wikipedia, namely "the lack of an image selection policy". And given that you have mentioned it here, I would suggest that such policy should be drafted. The reason Canterbury Tail could not provide a formal decision on Leo XIII was that he could not find a suitable Wikipedia policy to apply. I think such a policy is needed. As stated there, I am not sure where to suggest it but I will suggest it here and anyone please feel free to move the item below the suitable suggestion place:

Alas none of us is a mind reader, so we can not know why images get added. But suppose that an up and coming motor manufacturer, say Chery Automobile wants to get its name in front of the public in the US. Can they get a few of their marketing people to add images of Cherry products all over Wikipedia? Is there a policy regarding that? Can the images of a compact SUV be a Chery Tiggo, the image of a station wagon be a Chery V5 the image of a transmission that of a Cherry transmission and the image of a Disc brake a Cherry disc brake? (By the way, any Cherry executives reading this, please do send me a generous wire transfer for mentioning your name here.) And of course Etro can replace all images of gloves, scarves and shirts by distinctively colorful Etro designs. But this will tun Wikipedia into a marketplace, not an encyclopedia. I do not see a Wikipedia policy on this issue. And that is the source of debates therein: lack of policy. I would therefore suggest a coherent policy suggestion for how images are to be handled. But given the fragmentation issue humans will not be able to see the image distributions easily enough, and the best (and not difficult) way will be to have a bot that produces a report of "vendor presence" within Wikipedia. But the bot will need a policy. So I would suggest a policy discussion in the suitable place, then a bot design to provide such reports. History2007 (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This isn't something which is going to be resolved on ANI. My own experience with History 2007 has been overwhelmingly (indeed exclusively) negative, but ANI doesn't handle "this editor disrupts the project in myriad ways" complaints very well. Eventually someone will need to draft an RFC/U on him if this is to be handled properly. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to note that Xanderliptak's comment was canvassed. While Malke 2010 removed the comment herself, I'm afraid there's little doubt that it still drew his attention to this conversation. That said, Chris Cunningham is exactly right. If there are problems with History2007, they need to be handled in teh proper form--and without personal attacks. Xanderliptak, it is inappropriate to refer to other contributors as "hypocritical". Please confine your comments to their actions and remain civil. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that it was only inappropriate to make "[a]ccusations about personal behavior that lack evidence". I thought I provided ample anecdotal evidence of hypocrisy when History2007 agreed two separate times to have an independent party arbitrate the argument, only to have him declare each invalid after the decision went against him. One of the arbitrators was hand-selected by him as an admin he had previously had pleasant interactions with. It seems to be the definition of hypocrisy: to appear to be willing to compromise and agree to arbitration, when in reality History2007 had no plans to abide by a decision unless it was found in his favour. But henceforth, I will refrain from such statements. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 13:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

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

e/c Don't worry Moonriddengirl, he has said worse than that, but I have learned not to let it bother me. He will say this and that, and next week it will be forgotten. The key is to take this as an opportunity to put in place an image selection policy that will last for long, so if you know where, please suggestit. Talk comes and goes. History2007 (talk) 13:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:VPP may be the best place to start. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate closing of page move, threats by User:Petri Krohn

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

---

This user closed a requested page move before any consensus had formed, and after he himself participated in the page move. My understanding of Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions is that users who participate in page move discussions are not supposed to close them. When I brought the matter on his talkpage he responded with threats and incivility [77]. Any help or advice would be appreciated. Athenean (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

As a general rule, participants (i.e. PK) in such a discussion ought not make such statements as were made - including the weird aside about Sandstein, who is a reasonable person. Collect (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

More importantly, someone who participates in a requested move discussion to advocate a particular outcome (as Petri Krohn clearly did) should not close the discussion and implement their own recommended outcome, particularly not when there is no obvious consensus for that outcome. --RL0919 (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I had already turned this issue over to Sandstein. He is a very reasonable person and I have full confidence in his ability to deal with the Balkan disputes. He has also just recently blocked indefinitely at least one editor involved in this dispute who was treating Wikipedia as a nationalist battleground. The move discussion at Talk:Occupation of Ottoman Albania shows that others involved may have similar attitudes. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Petri, that doesn't appear to deal with your actions that are under discussion here.Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Misbehavior by other editors is not a justification for an admin individual closing a discussion in which that admin individual participated. If Petri wanted to bring in another admin to help with the situation, he should have done so earlier in the process, not after closing the discussion and moving the page. It wouldn't matter if every other participant in the discussion had been blocked by uninvolved admins; Petri was clearly WP:INVOLVED and acted anyway. --RL0919 (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Fixed mistake of my own presumption per comments below. --RL0919 (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The original request was to move the article from Occupation of Albania (1912–1913) to Albania during the Balkan Wars

I will copy my closing statement here so you will have some idea of what this is about.

“ The result of the move request was: Moved to Occupation of Ottoman Albania.

I am closing this discussion as a neutral outsider invited here on the Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard. As the arguments demonstrate, the old title is unacceptable under the Wikipedia central principal of neutral point-of-view; it precludes the creation of a neutral article. The suggested alternative has not reached a consensus. There is also evidence, that a state of military occupation existed. As a compromise In am moving this to Occupation of Ottoman Albania. Please do not try to undo this unilaterally. If you believe that you can come to a consensus on a better name, start a new discussion.

The discussion has been dominated by national and ethnic POV pushers. If you continue to edit Wikipedia with such attitudes, you will face administrator action or arbitration, meaning topic bans and indefinite blocks or bans. To save you from the temptation of having yourself immediately banned or blocked, I have salted the redirect at Occupation of Albania (1912–1913). Petri Krohn (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

”

I do not quote understand what User:Athenean wants here. In the discussion he was arguing for Albania during the Balkan Wars. That proposal did not receive the needed consensus. I will not object to the article moved back to Occupation of Albania (1912–1913), but I do not think that is what Athenean is requesting. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It sets a quite unacceptable example for you to comment in the discussion and then to close it, especially given the context. I've moved the article back to where it started since I believe that endorsing your closure would set a very bad example in an area of Wikipedia where editors need no more bad examples. If you believe the matter is being tainted by Balkan nationalism, then get more input. Advertise a requested move via an RfC, or posting something at the village pump. My attitude to the Balkan Wars and to Albanian nationalism is not so much neutral as don't give a fuck, so I should have no axe to grind here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

You may have missed something. I am not "involved" in the disputed. I responded to the request for outside help at Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard. You mention "something the village pump." The ethnic conflicts noticeboard is exactly where these disputes are supposed to be posted to. No one else from the outside has shown any interest in the issue. Anyway, It is good to see the enthusiastic response the issue has now attracted. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Petri posted this comment to Sandsteins talkpage after this thread was opened...

I have responded to this request at the Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard and closed a long overdue move request with a compromise move to Occupation of Ottoman Albania. As expected everyone is not happy – or at least some people may feel that they need to make some noise. I am now withdrawing from the article and the discussion and formally turning the issue over to you. I have warned the participants, that the ethnic POV-pushing attitudes shown in the discussion would likely lead to blocks and bans. If you see any disruption, I suggest you use your ban hammer freely. -- Petri Krohn

Translated ... I have closed a controversial move request that I was involved in and as I expected my action has caused disruption and some people are upset that I did it. Now that I have done that I am dropping out and leaving the mess in your hands, they are all ethnic pov pushers. I have warned them and feel free to block them freely. Off2riorob (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Nicely delivered. Great translation skills. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note: Page was moved back by Angusmclellan (talk · contribs) to the title that has been in use since March 2010. It seems further discussion is required here, so I've move protected the article for 1 week. Any uninvolved administrator may modify this action if they feel I have erred, or after consensus is reached. –xeno^talk 21:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Since somebody apparently mentioned me, this is just to note that I have not been notified of this discussion, have no involvement in this matter, and no desire to have any. But while I'm here I fully endorse what Angus McLellan says above.  Sandstein  21:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

You won, I lost. Or more like the Albanians won and the Greek lost. I will now crawl back into my cave in shame.

My actions here were motivated by two things, 1) A desire to solve some of the worst ethnic disputes on Wikipedia. 2) Learn skills in handling difficult ethnic disputes. The Balkans have beaten me to it – normal logic just does not seem to work. I was in the strong belief that the compromise, proposed by someone in the discussion would in fact please all parties. Least of all did I expect the Greek side to object to it. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not that you didn't try Petri. It's rather that you came initially into this as a Knight in shining armour and ended up exiting as a cowboy with all guns blazing. It is this role reversal that created these problems. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Point of information - Contrary to what was posted above, PK (afaict) is not an admin. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. I was BOLD and possibly Ignored All Rules. I did not even try to act in the role of the neutral administrator as RL0919 seems to imply. My BOLD decision – done after thorough consideration – was based on the assumption that it would in fact receive unanimous support. If it did not, then let it be undone. However, I still do not see the indication that Athenean is requesting that the old status quo be restored. If we are to continue with the two week old discussion this article is not going to go anywhere, least of all to where Athenean wants it. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. (and edit conflict) – By "unanimous support" I mean that no one makes an explicit request that I undo my actions. General sounds of displeasure do not count. I still have the feeling that Athenean is not asking for me or anyone to undo my action, but is instead somehow trying to wikilawyer this into his favored outcome. Maybe I am wrong. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, fixed above. But the point is still correct that you should not close discussions that you participate in, WP:BOLDly or otherwise. IAR is one thing, but that was foolhardy. In any case, the close has been reversed (which I would have done myself if I had realized it was NAC), so discussion can continue, however productive that may or may not be. --RL0919 (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

To further clarify, my note was not meant as an accusation, merely a clarification. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I should have clarified this earlier myself. I have added a note on my philosophy on my talk page. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok. AGF and unfamiliarity with the relevant procedures and policy covers this. It appears that Petri Krohn understands what was wrong here. Petri, please don't do that again. I think with that, we can close the discussion down... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Role of the ECCN noticeboard?

The wise men of AN/I putting a lid on the Balkan problems.

Another point to considered:

This issue is already discussed on another administrators' noticeboard, the Ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard. Opening a new thread here may not have been appropriate, overruling the other board even less wise. It is as if suddenly the wise men here have seen themselves wise enough to solve the problems of the Balkans. Well, emperors tired and failed.

Most important, the discussion and actions here seriously undermine the status and usability of the ECCN board.

It is my belief, that consensus on the ECCN board allows me to take bold or even drastic action. After all the ECCN board is an administrators' noticeboard and equal in status to this one. It is not a place for idle chat. As you can clearly see on the noticeboard, I have recorded my action there. It has already been put under the widest possible scrutiny. As it has not been contested, I feel it has the support of the community.

It is not my fault that the discussions on ECCN attract so little participation. I would welcome a situation where the board was streaming with bold administrators with the skills and understanding to leap into any hot dispute.

To add any weight to the ECCN noticeboard we should have something like the following recorded somewhere as a policy or ruling.

“ Actions taken and recorded on the ECCN noticeboard should not be undone without a discussion on that board. ”

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 09:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I am wondering how well known and how generally accepted that noticeboard is. I wasn't aware of it although I sometimes try to help out in this general area, and I am not seeing much participations there by the admins who first came to my mind in this context. I am sure this thread has contributed a lot to an awareness of ECCN. Maybe it would be a good idea to occasionally transfer a discussion from ANI to there to increase general awareness and put it on more people's watchlists. Hans Adler 13:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a number of these smaller boards. Every so often, someone comes along who thinks AN/I and AN are drama magnets and get too much traffic, and they try to break it out into these other subforums. They usually promise to patrol AN/I and AN and move appropriate posts to the subforums. What always happens is after a couple weeks people stop patrolling and moving, and we end up with a lot of unwatched subforums with unclear status. To wit: Wikiquette Alerts is basically a recreation of WP:PAIN; the latter was closed down years ago. Burpelson AFB (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent job with that Balkan picture! Anyway, as another nonserbian nonalbanian nongreek nonbalkaningeneral editor who has participated in the coversation, let me say that there was no clear consensus I could see on either the ECCN or the talk page (be it from nationalist prejudice or whatever). The discussion on ECCN do seem to stagnate though, I've had it on my watchlist for awhile (no idea why) and it barely ever pops up. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I think ECCN is potentially a good thing. As far as I can tell the nationalism problem has about the same size as the fringe problem, if not bigger, and the fringe noticeboard is quite successful. If enough editors willing to give neutral input put ECCN on their watchlist, it could be very useful. Hans Adler 22:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

BravesFan2006

BravesFan2006 (talk · contribs) — I really don't know what to do about this user.

• It took THREE warnings before he realized that we should no longer be adding the Canadian Country Singles peaks from R&R/Nielsen.
• Right below it, he messed up 2010 in country music when he added "Trailerhood" to the list of Top 20 singles.
• And right below that, re-addition of an unverifiable peak on The Band Perry and Hip to My Heart (diff).
• I've had to warn him once, twice, three times for formatting navboxes incorrectly.

He also uses an e-mailed chart update — only available through subscription — to update the Hot Country Songs charts positions every Monday, because he apparently can't wait until Thursdayish when the same positions are up on billboard.com. Despite countless warnings for WP:NOR he continues to violate them. He's also shown no attempt whatsoever to talk things over on his talk page, even though he used to as recently as a few months ago. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

BravesFan2006 (talk · contribs) has been an asset to the country music discographies and I'm appalled to see the project turn on him. The chart update he uses is available for free here to absolutely anybody, published by Billboard and verifiable. It's been used by TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) to source Craig Campbell's discography here. Without BravesFan, we'd be reliant on IP users jumping the gun and adding false peaks from God knows where like this because the unverifiable Mediabase chart is also published on Monday.

Everything else he's added has come directly from an official source, including the Canadian Country Singles peaks from here, which were only recently ruled unverifiable because the archive maintained by Billboard is only accessible to subscribers. They had been considered acceptable for four years and I think it would been better to have explained to him that there was a growing consensus not to include them rather than slapping a regular user with a generic template while the discussion was still ongoing. I can't blame him if he logged on, saw that a Canadian country peak had been removed and assumed that it was vandalism since adding Canadian country peaks had been standard practice for so long.

It seems like every time I sign in that something that used to be acceptable isn't allowed anymore, and now TenPoundHammer is targeting the Bubbling Under peaks citing precedent, even though a consensus hasn't been reached and he was the first one to start removing them. He did the same thing with succession boxes here but was called on it here. I find a lot of his recent actions malicious and suspect. It's no wonder BravesFan added the Bubbling Under peak back, because it's a true peak that had been there since the article was created and was removed without an explanation, supposedly because you have to have a Billboard membership to verify it. As far as BravesFan's habit of formatting navboxes incorrectly, I honestly don't believe he knew how to copy and paste up until a month ago, but that's based solely on observation.

And for the record, it was Nowyouseeme (talk · contribs) who added the incorrect reference for "Trailerhood" here and BravesFan tried to fix it here. Eric444 (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

As for the chart updates on Monday, it's not so much that he's using the Billboard update (which is perfectly fine — if nothing else, as a "backup" in case Billboard.com fails, such as on the Craig Campbell page) it's that he's not SAYING that he's using it. The only Bubbling Under peaks I'm removing are ones that I can't verify (2008 onward). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

BravesFan2006 (talk · contribs) added "Trailerhood" to 2010 in country music's Top hits of the year without a reference in the first place, and if you bothered to take the time to look at his talk page you can clearly see that that was the problem, I admit that I messed up the reference but I never tried to blame him for it, we wouldn't even be talking about this right now if he weren't so lazy that he put it on himself, so get your facts straight - TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) wasn't blaming him for the wrong wording in the reference, he was stating it was a problem that he didn't ADD a reference. You really need to grow up, because every time I sign in, all I see is you complaining about something. BravesFan is defiant and I think it's about time somebody reported him - you can only give somebody so many warnings Nowyouseemetalk2me 05:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Nowyouseeme (talk · contribs). BravesFan2006 (talk · contribs) almost never adds sources to articles, when they are in dire need of one, and if/when he does add one, its a bare url and not formatted properly. As for Eric444 (talk · contribs) - grow up. Life isn't fair sometimes and you're not always going to get what you ask for. Time passes and things change. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 21:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

When I joined Wikipedia, I understood it to be a collection of information. Lately, it seems like most users are signing in with an attitude of what can I remove and who can I attack. It's unfortunate and it's no way to grow the project. All of a sudden, the country music discographies are full of holes and asterisks and, ironically, are some of the most incomplete discographies on the internet and beyond.

I can accept change. I can understand why we're removing lyric quotes and I said nothing when reviews were taken out of the album infoboxes and moved into smaller boxes directly below them, but there's a lot happening lately that I don't agree with and it's hard to sit by and let it happen. Somebody has to speak up. Right now, we're deleting information that we KNOW to be fact because none of the regular country music members have a Billboard membership and it's laughable.

To get back to BravesFan2006 (talk · contribs), he added "Trailerhood" five days after the reference column was added. Since being called out by Nowyouseeme (talk · contribs), he has been adding references. This discussion is the very first time that I've ever seen the Billboard update questioned.

With all of the egos, cliques and policy changes, it's no wonder nobody wants to get involved and help with the "country and western" articles. Eric444 (talk) 02:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

User Indopug remove my comments on The Altenative Music project Talk page.

User:Indopug has twice now removed my comments on the Alternative Music Project talk page [78] [79], One I won't even get into it but Big Star is very relevant to alternative music and considered by most to be an alternative band. Two I'm not sure what gives him the right to police project talk pages editing them to fit his world view. 70.119.247.185 (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I've notified the user. While I don't think that your request to add unsourced material to an article is wise, that doesn't give editors the right to remove your comments from a valid central discussion point. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 21:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thing is WT:ALM isn't "a valid central discussion point." The Wikiproject discusses alternative rock, a genre that began in the very late 70s. Big Star is a band that disbanded in 1974, so they aren't alt-rock. Hence the discussion is irrelevant to the Wikiproject, and per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, "Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal."—indopug (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Article Alert Bot Bug/Requests Issue

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

---

OK, I am taking over the article alert bot, I got it approved by the WP:BAG. I am coding it and running it, and I have a user who is complaining to me because I want to change the way we reported bugs and feature requests for the bot. They were just on a Wikipedia page, I have them in a ticket system, the user is constantly arguing with me about keeping them on the page. I want them in the ticket system so I can manage them easily and keep track of what I have to do. The user will not let it go, since I am coding the bot and I am the one who has to do the fixed and features I should be able to determine how I want to handle that. So I would like some help. If maybe you could go to my talkpage and in the bottom section drop a note allowing me to do it thie ticket way for the sake of my organization. I have tried to give reasons as to why I am doing this and I am getting irritated. I am also in the verge of an edit war and loosing my cool. I have asked an admin and they referred me to WP:ANI. [80][81] Joe Gazz84^user•_talk•^contribs•_{Editor Review} 22:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually I referred you to WP:3O too ;) -- œ^™ 22:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Where was this discussed between the two of you, so we know the whole story? Your diffs are just showing an edit war. -- Atama頭 00:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sake, I want to work with you and you take me to ANI. I managed the Article Alerts since their inception, which is about two years now, making sure things run smoothly and that communication between the community and the coders/operators if fast efficient and smooth. I'm archiving resolved/outdated bugs and feature request to save you work and you revert me just because it's not you who archived them.

You really can't work with people can you? Maybe we should look for someone who can handle working the community to code the bot. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion was at this location.This user is not keeping a cool and arguing, as the coder and operator, I should be allowed to run a system that allows ME to get things done. I am the one who will have to do the fixing and features, the current system is scattered and does not work for me. I already got approved here, Wikipedia_talk:Bot_Approvals_Group#Taking_Over_Bot to take over the bot. My ticketing system works for me. I can get along with the community. I am working with another user and this user is someone who will help me with the user aspect, when I get the bot going this other user will be helping me anyway. I also as the coder and operator, I also believe I have a right to choose who I want to help me with the user community part, because we can work well and we can get this system to work well. Joe Gazz84^user•_talk•^contribs•_{Editor Review} 00:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Whatever happened to "The customer is always right"? Does it not apply to bot programmers? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

With my system the user also gets a email reply when the ticket is handled. It is not difficult to do. It makes it a lot easier for bot of us to get it fixed/added when it is that way, therefore making the customer happy. Headbomb is not a customer he is also like an employee taking inventory. He is not a customer either. Sometimes change is not a bad thing, people need change, if this does not go well, I am willing to go back to the other thing, I just would like to try this. Joe Gazz84^user•_talk•^contribs•_{Editor Review} 01:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You two could make a great team if only you'd come to a compromise and figure out how you could work together.. I think sacrifice is the key.. one of you has got to give.. and defer to the other for the sake of the net benefit to the project.. whoever that is is totally up to the two of you.. -- œ^™ 01:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

We could, I think change is good from time to time, and if this does not work than we can go back to the other system. I have someone who I have who is going to maintain the userpage and talkpages for the bot. So we need a system that they can use as well. Joe Gazz84^user•_talk•^contribs•_{Editor Review} 11:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• What's the problem with having bug reports on an email ticket system? Protonk (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

We already have two well-structured pages dealing with bugs and requests. If we add yet-another place to report issues and requests, that's even more pages to follow, two different archives that partially overlap, and we'll need to keep track of parallel and duplicate discussions. The "help center" is also login-based, which means that people will want to report and issue, then say "fuck it, it's not worth the trouble". Several people have interest in Article Alerts, and they will want to follow things on their watchlist, they don't want to go through hoops to find out about new bugs and requests, which have been fixed, declined, or needs more discussion.

Take WP:AWB for example, which is an even larger project than this. They don't use a ticket system exactly for these reasons, people who are on Wikipedia want to do things on Wikipedia. When you add a layer between developers and users, you lose users, thus you lose eyes, and thus you lose a sizable chunk of the feedback which you need to improve what you are making. Joe Gazz wants to have his ticket tracker "until he gets the bot up and running", which should apparently take a week or two, upon which he's open to switch to the old system. Do we really want to fork the support pages for two or so weeks' worth of issues? There will most likely be not one request, and not one bug report until the bot is up and running again.

The ticket system might have been a good idea back when AALERTS were created, but they've been here for roughly two years now and are well-implemented, switching is just not viable. Joe Gazz could easily watch the Bugs and Feature Request pages, and subscribe to them by RSS, but he just doesn't want to. His whole attitude is simply "Now that I run the show, I am above you and you will bow to me", which is utterly revulsive. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, part and parcel of relying on bot writers and operators for tasks is working with them on issues. My question related to the existential importance of the ticketing system itself versus an on-wiki solution. If it isn't a BFD to have a ticket system, then we should just do that. If we are rolling in other problems like trying to fight a broad meta-debate over bot control then that isn't important to me. Also, if this is a switch for two weeks, why not just have the system switch for two weeks? Seems like that is preferable to having a two week long argument. For the Joe, is it possible to just deal with the wiki system? If you are planning to eventually migrate to that could you just avoid this mess and migrate early? Protonk (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There's no problem with using an off-wiki issue tracker. There is a problem with requiring the use of it. Bot operators are required to be responsive to the community. The community's standard method of communication is the wiki. If he wants to use the system, that's fine, but he does need to listen to on-wiki complaints. A complaint left on a relevant discussion page (the bot's talk, the operator's talk, the project page) should not be ignored simply because they aren't where the operator prefers them. Mr.Z-man 22:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no issue with that, however I would like to leave the link and still allow users to add things to the page. That is fine with me. I will not ignore on the page, I will add a link to how to create something on the page but by the canter add (preferred). Is that OK? Am I not being reasonable with this comment, if not tell me. Joe Gazz84^user•_talk•^contribs•_{Editor Review} 22:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

No it's not, because that forks support pages, and makes it hell for people to follow things. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I just want to put out there that this is not that hard. You click the link, not mattering what page you click it on, and it shows you all the issues you added so you can find yours easily. They all come on one screen. It is not forking. We can make the link in the header go to the help center. Then it is not forking. I am about to screw this and not get the bot going because of the inability to work with this user. This is a long missed bot and I can get it to work. I think I deserve a little more respect than what I am getting from this user. Can I get an admin comment on that? Joe Gazz84^user•_talk•^contribs•_{Editor Review} 22:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here's my take on the matter, both as an editor and a BAGger. Note I don't speak for all of BAG.

1. I don't know whether xeno considered the operator or just the code, but either way given the situation here I think an actual WP:BRFA would be appropriate.
2. Quite simply, you must respond to on-wiki issues per WP:BOTPOL#Good communication. While you may offer an off-wiki ticketing system, you may not require anyone to use it for any aspect of communication about the bot. While you are not required to use the existing system, you should be aware that your talk page and/or the bot's talk page will then become the de facto reporting system. For reasons I won't mention for WP:BEANS, it is completely legitimate for people to insist that communication regarding their issues take place on-wiki and not through your ticketing system.
3. Do keep in mind that even if you get approval, the community can revoke that approval at any time.

Anomie⚔ 22:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand that, as I stated above, I would offer another option, of the on-wiki. I would add the link to the ticket sysyem but add (preferred by operator) and under it I would add a link for the on-wiki filing. Xeno did gove me the approval for just changing the API and nothing else. Which I am also having to operate the bot because the current op or coder is not active any longer. It may come to where the bot does need a new account because there is no password that has been given to be to load the bot to the account. In which case I will file a new WP:BRFA. Joe Gazz84^user•_talk•^contribs•_{Editor Review} 22:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

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

High profile user talk page fully protected

As a consequence of this week's Signpost coverage, things began to get ugly at Darius Dhlomo's talk page. I have therefore taken this action and this action to stop that. Uncle G (talk) 00:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Not that he was taking much advantage of it, but at least before these actions the blocked user had an opportunity to respond and contribute about the mess he created.

  I agree some of the comments were out of line, but I think deleting just them would have been more reasonable, and the discussion I was engaged in was not inappropriate (about whether serial plagiarism indicates maliciousness or is merely a "mistake").

  On a closely related note, I resent being accused of harassing anyone, as I was, without basis, by User:Bwilkins, on my talk page. Clearly the purpose of that post on my talk page was to threaten and intimidate, and so it itself constitutes WP:HARASSMENT, by definition. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Born2cycle - We have explicit policy against "tap dancing on blocked/banned users' graves", either on their talk pages or on noticeboards. Your posts on his talk page seem to have included some that fit into that category.

I understand your intentions and motivations, and I don't feel you're a bad user per se, but please don't do that again. It doesn't make Wikipedia look good or you look good. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• • And xe will have that opportunity again (electronic mail aside), in a few days time when the headline news has sunk in and people's heads are cooler. Yes, this stopped everyone, irrespective of what they had written, from abusing and using that user talk page. But that doesn't mean that there aren't places where you can discuss issues of the suspect quality of peacock worded prose, and whether that's a good flag for rapidly spotting copyright violations in the over twenty three thousand articles to be reviewed. That's been brought up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/CCI#In-depth study of small random sample, and if you have observations to make on that, as well as on the level of the problem to be tackled with respect to pages like Maurizio Damilano, which are not part of the first pass, then that's the place for them.

    A mass pile-on on the talk page of a blocked user, complete with comparisons to serial killers, deliberate provocation, and discussion of hypotheses of how that editor is some sort of very clever vandal, is not what this situation requires, however.

    And yes, we've already had one user who didn't xyrself understand copyright policy, and our mission to create free content, weighing in on this. See User talk:Uncle G#CCI bot, User talk:Moonriddengirl#Trackinfo, and User talk:Trackinfo#Copyright violation for more. Again, Darius Dhlomo's user talk page is not for disabusing other people of their misconceptions of copyright policy. Uncle G (talk) 01:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Uncle G's action seems fair and appropriate, particularly since it expires at about the same time I'd expect interest to be dying down. I think the other issue (born2cycle) needs to be dealt with elsewhere. Shadowjams (talk) 01:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • this is why we have WP:DENY, for this exact reason BB7 (talk) 01:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Dealt with elsewhere, Shadowjams? Where, if not here, can I file a complaint against an admin who is, without basis, threatening to ban me on my talk page for going "too far" with harassment when I haven't been harassing at all? --Born2cycle (talk) 02:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
    • How about dealt with in a new thread. Call me organized. Shadowjams (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, feel free - file a complaint about me asking someone stop harassing a blocked user. UncleG's actions were clearly and obviously called for, and as one of the admins who denied a Darius unblock, I also felt it necessary to protect the same person from what has already been called "dancing on the grave" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

PS: It's a WP:BLOCK for disruption and harassment (multiple posts on the point do make a pattern), and not a WP:BAN. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I suppose this is a wise move for now, to prevent a rush of hot-headed comments. But do keep in mind that Darius Dhlomo's future at Wikipedia is a discussion that will indeed need to be held someday. But you are right, now is not the time for it. --Dorsal Axe 03:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Protecting DD's user and talk pages is the right thing for now. There is a ban discussion on the now-rather-large ANI/CCI subpage, but I can see how it would make sense to wait for things to settle before figuring out how to handle that. 67.119.14.196 (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

User:BlueRobe fresh from block... with potential civility issues

BlueRobe (talk · contribs)

For background, note that there has been a recent RfC/USER [here] and a previous ANI [here]. Prior to his block, I also have tried to inform the user about behaviors that may be problematic in less formal venues.

User:BlueRobe's first comment after a block expired was to level incivil characterizations of three editors and to presume bad faith [saying -- among other things -- that one editor is "a pathological liar who cannot be reasoned with on any level"].

He was warned that this behavior is similar to that for which he was blocked: [82]. However, he disregarded the warning as a "petty taunt": [83]

He also seems to have an assumption of bad faith that is directed towards me, personally: see this comment from today.

Civility/AGF issues still seem to exist. If isolated, these edits would be stuff for WQA, however, given the larger context that these edits are consistent with a problematic pattern that does not seem to be improving, more scrutiny than Wikiquette may be merited. [Note, that I'm also discouraged about WQA for these issues, given the previous failure.] BigK HeX (talk) 02:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

As BlueRobe's comments have resulted in a lively discussion, I see no need for admin action and decline to take any. I should note that BlueRobe did not name any editor.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

For the first diff, it's certain that he was referring to User:Jrtayloriv and one could very reasonably presume the other two characterizations were meant for User:Carolmooredc and myself. The last diff is directed at me specifically. These comments are merely a continuation of the excoriation that he leveled against the three editors I've just name before he was blocked. It seems that he is now continuing his presumptions of bad faith unabated. BigK HeX (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK, I supported the block on BlueRobe and even went so far as to suggest indef blocking, if memory serves. But... in this instance, I feel it's far too soon, and this isn't anything new. If Blue takes it off their talk page and into mainspace there is an issue. If it stays in their own userspace it's not really doing anyone harm unless it escalates to blatant personal attacks, threats, canvassing, or other disruptions. Stating an opinion is not an actionable offense. I appreciate you're frustrated, but taking this to ANI so soon doesn't help warm relations between the at-odds user groups in your editing circles.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, as it is, he's not impressed by the referral. I believe an editor should be allowed to blow off steam on his own talk page within limits; clamping down on that means he'll just go to email, where we can't see what's going on. Please remember, AN/I should not be the first resort. Many thanks, --Wehwalt (talk) 03:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

With that said, this [84] isn't a good sign of things to come from BlueRobe. I think someone needs another talking to, without the direct threat of a block, from an uninvolved mediator.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

an admin already gave him a talk, "did you enjoy your break?", this type of question seems less than helpful. bigk has filed an unusually large amount of complaints, i am concerned it has become a personal issue for the editor. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

My notice was of course a gentle prod to the editor because he was indeed slipping back into the same behaviour that led to the block. It does not matter if it's on his talkpage or mainspace, my friendly notification (because I have his talkpage on my watchlist) was trying to preserve the chance that positive behaviour and editing could come, but with comments that were inherently uncivil - and the obviousness of whom the comments were related to - called for a reminder. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

perhaps you would agree your wording was not ideal? Darkstar1st (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. First of all, as indicated by the response here, BlueRobe's comment is far short of what is appropriate for a block. Secondly, and more importantly, did you enjoy your break is snarky and provocative. Finally, cows should be "prodded," not WP editors. Gerardw (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions that User:BlueRobe's incivility and bad faith receive a blind eye because he's just "venting" on his talk page seems like nonsense to me. At the very least, he should be given a clear notification that continuing the behavioral pattern that he seems to have jumped right back into on his first day is unacceptable. BigK HeX (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The simplest solution here is either a topic ban (tricky) or, better, an interaction ban. He seems to have been pretty rude in general about a lot of editors on his talk page, behaviour he was blocked for before. Rather than a block, which seems punitive at this stage, it would be better to ban his interaction with those people he insists on being uncivil to/about (of course, such a ban would go both ways). --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 09:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I've revised my view. The comments from BlueRobe are not hugely constructive - but he appears to have kept it off article talk. Which is an improvement. I recommend BigKHex and the others dial it back and particularly avoid Blue's talk page. The various talk pages, such as Talk:Libertarianism and Objectivism, are full of a lot of snappy comments that should be avoided. Can we not have polite disagreements backed up with explicit sourcing? --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 10:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Are we saying that AGF should not apply to user talk pages visited by User:BlueRobe? On the first day from the incivility block, he already leveled at least one (likely more) incivil comments about me specifically, which -- given his history -- I do not feel that I should have to tolerate. I've not asked for any sort of block here, as I'm not sure what the solution should be, but it seems doing nothing (or, only asking the editors that he berates to treat him with kid gloves??) is very unlikely to be the correct approach. BigK HeX (talk) 12:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I am saying just drop it and see what happens. Nothing is majorly uncivil so far, and the vague comments on his own talk page are nowhere near enough to warrant more blocking (which, remember is preventative not punative). I am suggesting that you move onto the content, unwatch his talk page and avoid rising to any baiting - perceived or deliberate. Give it some time and see what happens, reporting him so soon is not going to help unless there is a clear repetition of the behaviour he was blocked for (which I would point out was persistent rudeness at the RFC). --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Concur with tmorton166 Mine was a slightly-more-than-gentle warning not to return to previous behaviour. Until future behaviour occurs, there's nothing more to see - in other words, the warning has been confirmed to be read. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Just an FYI, one reason some of us watch BlueRobe and Darkstar1st's talk page is because aggressive socks of User:Karmaisking have come along and given them disruptive editing tips. Seeing insults against various editors certainly is annoying. Not necessarily blockable, but perhaps an attempt to incite. Not that I'm interested in taking the bait. Just something to keep in mind. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Possibility of ArbCom

Really not a fan of the accusations lobbed at me by BlueRobe here [85]. I stand by the spirit in which I've tried to mediate this, but since it's obvious that neither side wants any kind of constructive resolution. WHERE DO WE GO HERE? First, I try to step between BigK and Darkstar to offer some friendly advice on how to stay off the noticeboards, then they both assured me they don't have any real issues with each other but it's just heated professional discourse... fine. But it's not true! We're right back here today, in the same place we seemed to be before BlueRobe's latest block. I'm leaning toward an interaction ban on these editors or sending this to ArbCom. If they can't keep their article space discussions from spilling over into a myriad of noticeboards on a regular basis then there's a serious problem that is causing an undue amount of time to spent reffing this playground game!--Torchwood Who? (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Diffs, please, not threads! It is almost impossible to go into that wall of text and figure out who said what about who.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Diff added.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. It's strong, but I don't think it's blockable. Frankly, I've seen much stronger comments within bounds. Although BlueRobe needs some writing lessons, I think. --Wehwalt (talk) 01:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think ArbCom is the only WP:DR that's left to the editors seeking an end to the battleground at Libertarianism (we've already initiated WQA's, NPOV noticeboards, talk page RfC's, RfC/USER's, ANI's, and mediation). I have no experience with ArbCom requests, but if people here think this may actually merit their attention, then I would certainly assist wherever possible. BigK HeX (talk) 02:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't want BlueRobe blocked, and I'm not insulted by what they said. I'm frustrated that this dispute, which all parties claim they have worked out internally, continues to clog up noticeboards. I don't think BigK Hex, Darkstar1st, and BlueRobe are able to work constructively together without dragging the dispute to somewhere like ANI. As I stated above, I would suggest an interaction ban for a limited time. This may be difficult because all the involved editors share a content area, but at what point does something give?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 02:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: "this dispute, which all parties claim they have worked out internally, continues to clog up noticeboards"

To clarify, I don't think I've ever suggested that this problem has been (or even could be) worked out internally. If editors refuse to even acknowledge the existence of a viewpoint from reliable sources that are posted right there on the talk page (much less acknowledge the repeated outside input received from multiple Community Notices), I don't realistically see any chance for internal resolution. BigK HeX (talk) 07:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it should be overlooked that this is a political debate where one side wants effectively to delete (or disambiguate) all but one form of libertarianism from the main article. It is not just battling personalities. And there is a community sentiment on the non-deletionist side of the debate - as I detailed at this diff opposing yet a second request to move brought by the "deletionist" side, despite two RfC's, and the first request to move, that effectively shot down their desire to delete. As I say at the diff, if this isn’t Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Refusal_to_.get_the_point, I don’t know what is. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Seconding Carol, there is a civility problem related to IDHT and repeated picking at the scab of recently closed consensus. The problem isn't content based. It is about editors who wish to inject political lines into the article and who are engaging in disruptive behaviour to stall editing along consensus lines. I believe Carol and myself have radically different political lines; but, we agree that the purpose of Wikipedia is encyclopaedic recording of topics according to discoverable RS WEIGHTed by significance in RS. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have a time limit, but we can set arbitrary limits on blocks, bans, etc. What if you try this... What if all the involved editors will consent to attempt one week of editing without personal talk page interaction with each other or bringing rehashed related issues to a noticeboard? If you can't go one week without the off article bickering or bringing a dispute involving the same editors to a noticeboard I think ArbCom would be a good place to go. But I would personally like to see just a few days of attempting to disengage on userspace pages as a final attempt to work this out as a content only dispute. Remember that ArbCom is for behavior, not content disputes.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, it seems that you may misunderstand the dispute, User:Torchwoodwho. The source of the problem has never been user talk page interaction. The problem with the editors involved is SQUARELY and unequivocally about an issue that has long-been resolved by an RfC, but which a very small minority of editors refuses to even acknowledge. There are editors in a thread at Libertarianism right now who refuse to even acknowledge that a viewpoint found throughout numerous reliable sources even exists .... even with the sources posted directly onto the talk page. The level of apparent WP:IDHT is beyond ridiculous. The problems between the involved editors has next-to-nothing to do with user talk pages, as this problem would persist even if there had never been any interpersonal civility issues. It is the singular POV issue being raised in Every Single New Thread on the Libertarianism talk page which is at the root of the problem. BigK HeX (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand that this last round of ANI was the result of talk page chatter. I also understand that during the last RfC on BlueRobe the talk page chatter added fuel to the fire. I'll also reiterate that ArbCom doesn't handle content disputes, so unless the incivility from user talk spills over to article talk ArbCom won't have much to do.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not looking at ArbCom for deciding content. I'd only ask for ArbCom to review the many, many Community Notices and to end any WP:IDHT, should any exist. BigK HeX (talk) 07:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

i pledge to not comment on either users talk page for a week, and permanently should it produce positive results in the 1st week. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar, if the RfC referenced (which I was aware of, but considered the issue distinct from the incivility) is reopened and it's found to be absolutely clear consensus would you agree with that consensus and edit accordingly? --Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Bigk et al, if Darkstar et al agrees to this would you be opposed to reopening the RfC? If you feel you had a strong consensus what harm could be done spending a few more days at RfC to make it definate, you're essentially fighting the same battle every day anyway.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 08:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

absolutely and with without any regrets. ii hope the mediator will return soon, as we seemed to be making great progress in a supervised environment, bickering and off-topic had almost ceased. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be opposed to re-opening the RfC without a lot more conditions being met. IMO, having only Darkstar1st's participation is pretty far from being sufficient to end the WP:IDHT. BigK HeX (talk) 08:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

{od}}No dice, I'm sure arbcom would reject it out of hand. It is the last avenue of resort and going there early will work against you big time - especially as you mostly have content issues with which they do not deal.

• At the very least you have a formal mediation step to go through
• The RFC/U, also, never finished.
• Torchwoods discussion is a good one because this specific issue arose out of user talk pages. Stop watching the talk pages - that is the simplest "first" solution to the main problem right now. Everyone, go click unwatch now no matter why you think you need to watch it. Enough admins/other users have an "eye on" :)
• In terms of that RFC it is not clear who closed it? Was it one of you? It is clearly quite contentious so a wider mediation/RFC might be in order, specifically one closed by an uninvolved editor of good standing. Remember there is no time limit on this and if it takes another 3 months to hash out to conclusion that is perfectly ok. Better that than get into roundabouts of discussion over and over --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 08:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The RfC was opened and closed by a long-time editor serving as an informal mediator who was not involved in any of the talk page disputes [I checked the history going back as far 2008.] Moreover, it's not just that one RfC ... there have been multiple page move requests and other noticeboards ... all over the same basic topic. In every single one of these, the community input is clear that the vocal minority is unable to make a persuasive case about their preferred POV for the Libertarianism article. BigK HeX (talk) 08:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want an interesting statistic, out of 4 Community Notices (RfC's and Page Move requests) forced in the last 2½ weeks, there were numerous editors who were not previously participating in the talk page discussions. Of the editors whose first appearance was in response to the Community Notices, the following editors have Opposed proposals by the "vocal minority"

User:Jrtayloriv, User:Iota, User:NickCT, User:Zazaban, User:N6n, User:Fubar_Obfusco, User:Snowded, User:Figureofnine, User:Dailycare, User:LtPowers, User:Tmorton166, User:Skomorokh, User:Andrewa, User:Dtobias, User:Cwenger, User:Yworo, User:Gavia_immer

While this is the list of the only outside editors to have Supported the "vocal minority's" proposals:

User:Rapidosity and User:Anatoly-Rex

I really don't think the Community's general opinion can be much clearer. BigK HeX (talk) 09:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I've referenced this discussion at the politics wikiproject in hopes of getting additional uninvolved political content editors to participate in this discussion. Should this thread be moved off ANI to somewhere? I don't think there's any admin action required at this moment, especially not on the issue originally raised.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on the RFC closure BKH. There was no signature on the close and the way it was summed up further down the page suggested involved editors had closed it. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 09:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar, why do you feel consensus wasn't reached, or that the consensus reached was somehow invalid?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

the rfc was closed rather soon after it opened, would there be any benefit for allowing more editors to comments on the broad or narrow view? better yet, possibly rewording the rfc, as some object to the wording as biased. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

And...would you care to elaborate on how the wording was biased? BigK HeX (talk) 10:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Grossly offensive comment on blocked user's talk page

Will someone with a mop please have a look at User talk:Negrosrslaves? Someone needs their talk page editing privileges removed. Yes, sigh, I will notify them... Drmies (talk) 05:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked. AlexiusHoratius 05:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty clear sock of somebody interested in the user last referenced on the talk page. Perhaps a CU check would be appropriate. Shadowjams (talk) 06:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the user name is a "bad name", maybe? "Negroes are slaves". It's "kind of" offensive... Doc9871 (talk) 11:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That's just one of several reasons that guy needed to be indef'd (and was). The fact it's a sock is fairly obvious. And this outrageous comment [86] which is what this section title refers to, even if his username were "I Love Everyone", is enough to put him on ice for good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This autoblock has affected me. The user - who I don't know, I should point out, must work for the same company as I do. We have limited internet access here at work, wikipedia being one of the few allowed site, and I do much of my wiki-ing from work. An IP block like this could potentially affect hundreds of users, as we all access through the same intranet. I'd also like to mention that this block has been awkward, as I couldn't request unblock, as my talk page access was also revoked. This may well be the same for other users. I've had to sneak to a third party company and use their internet access to type this. Asking such a favour could well cost me a cup of coffee. Yikes. a_man_alone (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Enjoy your coffee, I IP Exempted your account. A man alone appears to have been autoblocked in June as well, so this is not a new circumstance - and the username that caused the block then (User:Pinniacle) might be another name to add to the sock hunt, if and when. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Not my coffee unfortunately - I meant that I would have to buy somebody else a coffee after they let me use their PC, and indeed into their building in the first place. As I have no real desire to out myself, I'll be deliberately vague, but I had to leave my own place of work and visit a supplier (just down the road fortunately) to be able to type the above comments. However - I'm back, in both senses of the word. Thanks Ultra. a_man_alone (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

For how long should an IP sock be blocked?

Yesterday, I blocked 71.247.247.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 31 hours as a nominally first time vandal. Their actions did look rather "experienced" and today Lothar von Richthofen provided this evidence, which I pass on:

You blocked the IP address 71.247.247.55 earlier today for repeated vandalism. I did some digging and found that the edit and reversions (1, 2, 3) made to the page Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision strongly resemble edits made earlier this year by accounts permanently banned for sockpuppetry:

• User:HabbitTones: edit
• User:BW and PS: Durr: edit
• User:Ucuchasucks: edit
• User:Asiddeamong: edit

and possibly also this now-deleted edit:

• User:BongwarriorisNOTfamilyfriendly: deleted edit

In my opinion, there is no reason to reopen Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asiddeamong, since it's a definite WP:DUCK, but the IP should be blocked for more than 31 hours. My broom is a bit new, so my question is: how long? It's a directly allocated address, but an indef might be a bit controversial. I should note, that the IP has requested unblocking several times, promising that they will no longer vandalize. The reviewing admins were not impressed. Favonian (talk) 08:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your instinct. No reason to reopen another SPI on an obvious one. A few issues probably should factor into the length of an IP block. Indef is never appropriate on an IP.... but in some extreme cases a 3 year block is appropriate... in extreme cases. So long as there's a reasonable time-frame where if someone forgot about the whole thing it would go away, the block is justifiable.. I would suggest basing the decision on the variability of the address (if it's the same editor for 12 months then it's virtually a static address, block for any submultiple that editor's had the address) and also the spread of the IP. That's a basic approach, but there are definitely ISPs that fluctuate wildly and others that don't at all. Trust the edit history on the IP if there's a doubt, and use the IP range calculator if there's a question about collateral damage. There are plenty of IPs that change week to week and others that only change every few years. It's a trick to distinguish them, but if the same soft of edits show up years apart it's a strong sign. Just my opinion. Shadowjams (talk) 10:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Sock IPs are usually blocked for 6 months or a year. Of course if it looks dynamic, you could use 1-3 months. –xeno^talk 12:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks both of you for your replies. In the concrete case, it's one single IP having performed no previous edits and which furthermore is directly allocated, so I don't think there will be any collateral damage. I will therefore extend the block to six months. Favonian (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

User:LarkinToad2010

User:LarkinToad2010 mainly edits pages related to Hull and on a cultural festival there named Larkin 25. Despite many attempts to reason with this user (see his talk page, including deleted comments there) and warnings to try to interact in a civil way with other editors, they show obvious signs of WP:OWN problems. Any edit that is not to LT2010's liking is reverted with comments varying from "pedantic edit" at best and accusations of vandalism at worst. The talk pages of the articles that they edit (for example Talk:Larkin 25, Talk:Larkin with Toads) and its user talk page are replete with accusations and insults at the address of other editors. Besides myself, several other editors have also tried to reason with this editor (for example User:Steve Quinn, User:Andy Dingley, User:Richard Harvey, and User:DGG), but to no avail. I for one are becoming quite fed up with the continuous assumptions of bad faith and vandalism accusations of this editor and their inability to discuss article issues in a civil way, assuming good faith. In the above I have provided only a few difs, there must be by now dozens of possible examples, but inspecting the edit histories of the mentioned articles and those of their talk pages speak volumes, I think.

I am not quite sure what needs to be done. On the one hand, I think it is obvious that this editor's behavior is inadmissible. On the other hand, apart from the problematic edits that are the reason for me being here, this editor has also contributed interesting and worthwhile material. Perhaps a short block would be in order to show the teeth behind the many warnings that have already been given might induce this editor to become more cooperative. I am not optimistic, but I do think that it should be given a try. --Crusio (talk) 14:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

For some additional background info on this editors consistent incivility to other editors may I also suggest the following reading:-

• Talk:Theresa May diff=378073179 - accusing Keith D of Trolling
• User talk:Tide rolls#Uninvolved admin request by 'Keith D' for neutral intervention to LarkinToad2010
• Larkin 25 vandalism by DGG and Steve Quinn accussing editors of vandalism on the Help Desk
• Talk:Kingston upon Hull#Sockpuppetry concerns
• Talk:Larkin 25#Major edits Incivility

There is more but its pointless listing every individual instance. Richard Harvey (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• It's also fairly clearly that he is editing from IP addresses as well to try and give a false consensus to his edits/avoid 3rr. Blocks are meant to be preventative not punishment so I'm not sure what action can actually be taken. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, there's fairly clear evidence on-wiki that 86.156.165.25 (talk · contribs) is another account, not LarkinToad2010 (talk · contribs). Uncle G (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Given how unclear the identity of the IPs is, and whether or not they are socks, I would prefer if we could concentrate here on this editor's problematic behavior. --Crusio (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • That anon IP is not an issue here, nor suspected to be a Sockpuppet. The lists of those are here:- Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of LarkinToad2010 and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of LarkinToad2010. Richard Harvey (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I start by stating I am User:Steve Quinn. I will begin with a succession of edits by User:DGG on September 6. It begins with the first diff here, and continues with five more edits in a row [87] (which can be viewed beginning with this diff). The edits pertain to tagging for {{current}}, {{external links}} and {{fansite}} * copyedit to remove wordiness and duplication * copyedit for conciseness and non-repetion * (general) copy edit * remove (more) duplication * and (remove or fix) unnecessary duplicative promotional schedule of events. Overall, DGG has made efforts to tone down the promotional, and trivial style of this article. Here he openly annouces his goals on the talk page (see second paragraph in diff) [88].

Here User:LarkinToad2010 responds with creating a section entitled "Vandalism by pest" His comment in this section begins with "I see we have a pest at work on this UK-based article." and ends with "I am absolutely livid at this vandalism and am putting this to the helpdesk".

Then LarkinToad2010 produces an uncivil response in the section where User:DGG annouces his goals [89]. They begin with "This 'copyedit' seems like vandalism to me", [90] and adds " "This article has already been subject to pests who should know better..." Pests obviously refers to other editors attempting to contribute to this article.

At around the same time LarkinToad2010 becomes confrontational on DGG's talk page with an actual section title "Your vandalism of Larkin 25 article" [91]. In this section the Larkin user states "Why have you vandalised the Larkin 25 article and taken it on yourself to make such changes without consulting first? Your edits are unhelpful and resented as this article took a lot of research and your edits are unwarranted. ... you have overstepped the mark and made false sllegations about 'point of view of fan' on this UK-based article. You should have put any radical edits to the discussion page first and I am livid that you have acted out of hand in this fashion." I would like to state that after reviewing the ariticle at this point myself it seemed to contain a lot of trivial items. The promotional and the trivial were the shortomings of this article, which User:DGG was trying to overcome.

After this the (current) tag was correctly removed (by an uninvolved editor). It did not belong on this article. However, the other two tags added by DGG were correctly placed for this article.

It appears that the next step taken by the Larkin user was to revert all six previous article edits by DGG, [92] and I have already characterized DGG's edits.

And this is only the tip of the iceberg. This type of behvior goes all the way back to July 7, 2010. On that date the Larkin user created a section on the talk page entitled Vandalism to Larkin 25 updates. He characterizes edits made to the article as "the page is being vandalised in this fashion".

Going back to September 2010 I responded to the Larkin User with a comment which was almost verbatim from WP:CIVIL, here: [93], after his uncivil remarks pertaining to User:DGG.

I also did some article editing here [94] and here [95]. (This was after a number of edits by the Larkin user, including reverting User:DGG). I don't recall the exact sequence, but the Larkin user responded to my article edits on the talk page with an uncivil comment here [96]. User:Cameron Scott followed with three article edits, begining here, [97]. My edits and Camerson Scott's edits were then reverted by the Larkin user, and characterized as "concerted vandalism" [98].

I also believe a block for an appropriate amount of time is needed for this situation. Also the block should include the articles mentioned in this ANI session, because the problematic editing involves more than one article. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Currently (today) LarkinToad2010 continues to edit war with the other editors on this article: [99], [100], [101], [102]. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, also today (Sep. 15th) User Larkin has created another section to characterize other editors on the Larkin 25 talk page entitled "Vandalism", [103] and [104]. This is after much discussion with him about his editing behavior. I can supply diffs for those also if needed. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• • It is [105] that in my mind illustrates the worst of the reversions, the insistence on adding not just excessive detail, but frank and blatant duplication. I consider this an example of where a modest article is wholly defensible, and an excessive one promotional. From time to time, some such cases are taken to AfD and deleted, on the basis that they can not be improved by routine editing, because the proponent of the article has been making it impossible. If we do not block the editor long enough to permit a decent article, along with perhaps a topic ban, that remains a possibility, for we have no other means than these of enforcing proper content editing. DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• It seems to me that there is more than enough evidence provided above to justify a block of User:LarkinToad2010 for disruptive editing. Probably a block for a couple of weeks to begin with would be appropriate, to see if it induces User:LarkinToad2010 to modify his behavior and stop the pattern of disruption. If that does not help, a longer block or an indef block may become appropriate. Nsk92 (talk) 08:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• And continuing. Somebody please put an end to this already! --Crusio (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Still not getting it. I'd cheerfully block were I not involved. Nancy ^talk

• And yet more accusations. --Crusio (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Abuse of admin power - violation of AGF; threaten to block a user for harassment who hasn't harassed

Resolved

 – frivolous complaint Toddst1 (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Quick block

Could someone please quickly block the latest sock of Ragusino, "User:DjoreLevin"? (see this and this on my talk) The guy's probably back from ferragosto and is starting to stir up trouble again. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Indef'd for disruption. I've not looked at the evidence for the socking so I'll leave the tagging to someone else. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

A checkuser blocked User:Ragusino. --Inka⁸⁸⁸ 22:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your time with this. He'll likely be back. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Cut and paste move help

Ruth Langsford has been cut and paste moved to Ruth Holmes. If an admin could sprinkle their fairy dust over it, appreciation would be felt. DuncanHill (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Haven't done this in a while, so correct me if I screwed it up. But everything should be moved and properly redirected now. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks :) DuncanHill (talk) 20:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

BLPPROD template

Resolved

 – Time for a break! - Burpelson AFB ✈ 22:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at the BLPPROD template invoked by Twinkle. It appears to have been altered to read (in part) Notification of User talk:Example is strongly recommended. Notify user.Notification template:

When I have used it before I think it just suggests notifying the article creator. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry dumb request, just figured out what User:Example is. Time to switch off the computer!! Jezhotwells (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson and Civility

(With all the different notice and complaint pages, I'm never sure where to place one of these.) User:Pmanderson is displaying an utter lack of civility or the ability to assume good faith at Talk:Aorist. Here are diffs demonstrating his rudeness: [112], [113], [114] (edit summary), [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121] (edit summary), [122] (edit summary), and [123] (edit summary). And that's all within the last 24 hours. This is on top of his edit warring reported here, here, and here; his blatant disruptive vandalism here; and his WP:POINTy overtagging of material. --Taivo (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh... what? "Reported here, here, and here"? One permanent link would have been a good deal more useful than three identical ones which will all soon be identically dead on the fast-moving ANI. Please click on "Permanent link" in the toolbox, then refer to Wikipedia: Simple diff and link guide if needed. (Please, everybody do it this way! ANI linkrot is a disease!) I will comment on the substance of your complaint later, if I can find the time. Bishonen | talk 00:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

I have been extremely critical of Taivo's edits; I have also condemned his practice of revertwarring. Anyone reading Talk:Aorist will see that Taivo - who neglected to inform me of this post until I reminded him to do so - has attacked Wareh Radagast and other more vigorously than I have ever attacked him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as warning you of the AN/I, I was about to post a warning when I saw your edit warring report and responded there first. I didn't see your post "reminding" me until after I had already posted here and then posted a warning on your page. --Taivo (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no comment on this issue, and am officially neutral, but I direct the readers to the recently closed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pmanderson. Carry on. --Jayron32 04:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It is true that I tend not to back down when faced by revert warriors with an agenda. The revert-warring of this pair is documented below. (I am not asking for sanctions; I have already reported it to AN3 and am content to have the article protected.); their uncivil language is spattered all over the talk page. Taivo is using a trumped-up civility complaint to remove those who disagree with him on substance; he has also done this against Wareh, less than a day ago; then again his first reply to Wareh's learned and intelligent comments was that he failed to understand the fundamental linguistics of the issue. Meanwhile he makes cracks about my needing a-word-a-day rolodex.

Taivo:

• 04:36 September 15
• 21:39 A total reversion to restore part of a text.
• 21:43
• 23:04

Warned Taivo

Kwami:

• 18:15
• 20:52
• 20:53
• 21:01
  • undone 21:03; demonstrating knowledge of 3RR; I would be satisfied if this had ended here.
• 22:04 partial revert.

Warned Kwami

Pmanderson is clearly a very intelligent person, and he also has a knack for building social networks online. I suspect that his intelligence and he network of supporters has lead him to believe that hi simply can't be wrong. But sometimes he is, and he reacts to constructive discussion by calling those who disagree lying vandals, and accusing them of being sockpuppets, a view that makes sense if you presume that he is faultless.

He has received many blocks both for edit warring and incivility, the last one just a month ago. These seems to have made no impact at all on him, as he carries out as usual with edit wars and uncivil behaviour. If he gets blocked, he usually find some excuse or technicality to get unblocked quickly, or he makes a half-hearted promise to never do it again, which he then breaks a couple of months later. Neither the previous short blocks, nor the multitude of times he gets brought up to AN/I and WQA has helped. Possibly his quick unblocking and the general ignorance of his behaviour from admins has instead served to validate his behaviour. As a result, Pmanderson seems to think that policies doesn't apply to him and this view is not unreasonable as he somehow is able to break them repeatedly with no or little impact.

The current situation with Pmandersons persistent editwarring and uncivil behaviour is detrimental to Wikipedia and to many of the articles he touches. I can't see any solution than a longer block which doesn't get undone when he makes another empty promise to be better in the future. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Another case of civil semi-WP:Civil POV pushing; for a summary of OpenFuture's conduct, I have no better source than Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pmanderson. Please consult. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Pmandersons reaction above is an excellent example of what I mentioned about Pmandersons reaction to constructive criticism. He simply claims anyone that disagrees with him is some sort of vandal with an agenda, or lying. In this case his uncivil behaviour is according to him because he does not "back down". Not backing down is no excuse for incivility. He also claims I'm a POV pusher, which is a direct lie, and yet another insult. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

DocOfSoc

Resolved

 – content issue, being worked out --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• DocOfSoc (talk · contribs) seems to be starting an edit war with me on John Berry (singer) and I just can't seem to get through to him. His charges include:
  • Removal of a reliable source, claiming that he owns the album in question even though the reliable source I added says it wasn't released.
  • Addition of "ironically" in unencyclopedic tone.
  • False accusations of me WP:OWNing the article and inserting a copyright violation — which appears to be a valid quote that was there before I started editing the article! (see Talk:John Berry (singer)#Another source)

Can someone help me set this straight? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Will Beback (talk) and Doc9871 (talk) are discussing this with DocOfSoc. DocOfSoc is a hard-headed but good-faith editor who respects Will and Doc9891, so I'm positive about the outcome. Both Will and myself got involved with DocOfSoc through disagreements, later resolved extremely amicably, hence my positivity. Incidentally, DocOfSoc ain't a "him" ;-) TFOWR 10:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yup, this is all mostly content issues. We're working on the talk page & article and have opened an RS/N thread to get input on one of the sources. Marking as resolved as it all seems amicable! --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Odokee, again

Odokee (talk · contribs) has resumed editing and performing the same edits as per the other two times I've mentioned him here. In addition to the fact that he has resumed edit warring, he was found to have edited while as an IP last time. His latest edits: [124] [125] [126] [127]. I'm not going to bother with a talk page message to notify him of this because he's just going to remove it like every other one directed at him to change his ways.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I have notified him for you. I think this is mandatory. Kindzmarauli (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Not when he'll ignore you, anyway.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{ANI-notice}} to do so." Whether he ignores or not. It's called, "CYA"... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

What does this have to do with edits that are obviously incorrect? You can have "style" conflicts and get them deadlocked in arbcom discussions, but that isn't a factor here. Summaries of "Did you learn NOTHING?" doesn't explain it. - Odokee (talk) 02:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"RPG", "DSi", "SP", and "Dr." aren't Japanese. Going 1:1 for these does not help the reader at all. Your thoughts on how to treat romaji do not reflect that of the rest of the project, and the fact that you keep going to pages and changing it to the way you think it should be because you think it's redundant or a "fake japanification" harms the project rather than helps it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to comment. I'm of the opinion that if the Japanese title uses English letters, there is no need to romanize that unless the letters being used have a substantially different meaning than what they'd normally be read as. "Dr." means "Doctor" and there is no benefit in simply writing it with a Japanese pronunciation. Most people would probably read it wrong anyway, romanization is rarely an accurate reflection of pronunciation. Interpretation of the writing varies wildly. That said, it was quite evident last time that Odokee has a communication and edit warring problem, the latter also shared by Ryulong at times. That said I'd recommend the following:

• Both are topic banned from anything to do with romanizing Japanese text for 2 weeks to give them both time to think about.
• Odokee is further topic banned from romanizing Japanese text in article space for 2 months. He's free to start and engage in discussions on the topics in talk space, or wikipedia/project space to discuss it in various places. The goal here is to get him to engage in constructive discussion. Its nice to see him actually respond here, but the constant blanking of notes and non-responsiveness we saw before needs to end.
• Both should contribute a well thought out comprehensive solution including compromises to the central discussion formed on this topic.

That's my 2 cents.--Crossmr (talk) 05:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I primarily work in a topic area that deals entirely with Japanese text. I can't be banned from using romaji. It'd get in the way of me improving the project. I shouldn't be punished for making edits like this on a page that Odokee is not going to be anywhere near. And your proposal actually helps Odokee because he doesn't do anything with romaji other than remove it where he feels its unnecessary. Frankly, it's other users with your opinion on this area of romanization that got us into this problem in the first place. Leaving "Dr." as "Dr." when doing this is an unnecessary redundancy. Providing the text "Dokutā" is not going to hurt the project as much as it would to omit it entirely.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

See WP:DEADLINE. A couple of weeks to clear the air and get everything sorted won't sink wikipedia. The japanese text will still be there, and who knows, maybe someone else will step up and romanize what needs being done. Providing the text "Dokutā" doesn't really do anything to benefit the project either. 10 different people will likely read it 11 different ways unless they're familiar with japanese pronunciation. I know, I deal with Korean romanization quite a bit. It's a convenience crutch and not something which is actually useful for genuine understanding of how something is pronounced. While we should romanize any japanese characters, english letters really aren't an edit warring priority.--Crossmr (talk) 07:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I edit the project every freaking day and most of that involves Japanese text. Odokee writes about videogames and has strong opinions on the inclusion of certain aspects of Japanese romanization. And as I stated below, I've undone several of my reverts (I still think that "Dokuta" is useful on Dr. Mario (video game), as is the Japanese pronunciation of "64" on Super Mario 64) and I've taken Super Mario RPG off of my watchlist. I won't be engaging in any more conversation with Odokee unless it regards the change in guidelines here. He can do what he wants so long as it isn't outright removal of something that is not romaji of English letters. My updating of various pages on this project should not be hindered because I edit warred with Odokee on completely different pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

In short, I don't want to be blocked for two weeks because I added a damn episode title to a page Odokee will never touch because someone will want to report me out of spite. I'm sorry I ever tried to bring Odokee's less than perfect behavior to light.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I never suggested you be blocked. I suggested you two were topic banned for a period of two weeks to let the dust settle and go stretch your legs in other areas. You're free to even edit the same articles as long as it doesn't involved touching the romanization. I'm not sure why Muzemike sees it necessary to enforce the topic ban with a block, I would only see that as being necessary if one or both of you violated the topic ban. Simply put we can't have edit warring continuing over this issue, the reason I suggested a longer topic ban for the most contentious party and suggested you both write up a quality solution to the problem for discussion.--Crossmr (talk) 12:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree on Crossmr's topic ban proposal with two additions:

1. Enforcement – A block for the remainder of the duration of the topic ban or 1 week, whichever is longer, any violation of the first condition.
2. Both users must agree to this topic ban in order for this to be effective. Alternatively, community consensus for this topic ban may be attained if needed.

I'm not sure about the second condition of this, especially in the light of major drama coming forth as a result of this; I'm more inclined to disagree with the second condition for fairness reasons. –MuZemike 06:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

To avoid this unnecessary hindrance on my ability to edit this project, I've reverted myself on several pages and I will stop adding romaji for letters of the English alphabet, which is the source for this current edit war with Odokee. However, I still think that Odokee needs to be told that he should not ignore the requests of others by blanking messages on his talk page and going about his normal business, and that he should continue to work at WT:MOS-JA to come up with a solution to the rest of the issue which is not for letters of the alphabet (which this currently is all about) but rather cognates. Because the arbcom sure as hell isn't touching this until it's gone through two other dispute processes.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The second condition is a reflection of Odokee and Ryulong's behaviour. While they both edit warred last time around, Ryulong made attempts at communication which Odokee refused to respond to and engage in. He then turned around and socked to try and get his way. Fair is not everybody getting the same thing. Fair is everybody getting what they need/deserve. Odokee has a problem with communication and he needs some motivation and restrictions to encourage his communication. Ryulong would be remiss to ignore any attempts at communication on article talk pages and use the ban to push his view. as a clarification the 2 months for odokee isn't on him romanizing text, its on anything to do with romanized japanese text in article space, be it addition or removal or anything else.--Crossmr (talk) 07:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Oversight request

[redacted] looks like a BLP problem. I reverted and I'm not overly familiar with BLP/oversight rules, but I think this is a candidate. Hobit (talk) 02:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It is. In the future, however, please notify the oversighter team by email to avoid drawing additional attention to a potentially libelous edit containing personally identifiable information. — Coren ^(talk) 02:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Hobit (talk) 02:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

BPtruth Legal Threats?

Resolved

Using huggle on vandal patrol I reverted this [128] from the Park 51 article. Is this a legal threat? I think it's needs to be looked at.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This user also vandalized Torchwoodwho's shortly after he posted this here. Rev ID: 385104225 --Wolfnix • Talk • 03:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

More on my talk page minus the legal aspect [129], reverted by another user.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved User was indef blocked for continued attacks on other users and pages.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Sock?

After looking at User talk:Pfagerburg, I wonder if User talk:Pfagerburg isn't their nemesis/stalker/whatever User talk:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey. Anyone care to look into it, find the right templates, etc.? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You may also want to add PaulFagburg (talk · contribs) into the list of potential socks. This is also related to the issue below about a legal threat on Russell Grant. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Darn it, I got it all wrong--the suspected sock is indeed PaulFagburg, clearly playing a name game. I realized that just as I saw your note. Pardon the confusion. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

How much longer will Wikipedia allow this harassment of its volunteer editors by people who have been permanently banned? The foundation needs to become more active in resolving these issues or we will all see the decrease in new editors trend continue. Nobody wants to edit here if they're going to be targeted with impunity by cranks, serial trolls and strange people with misguided agendas. Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Some persistent vandals and socks never seem to give up, sadly. Rangeblocks do expire, socks do find new ways to disrupt and harass. Do they have anything better to do? Probably not. We can only do so much as the software allows us. –MuZemike 14:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Potential legal threat on Russell Grant

Someone just reported 82.5.71.106 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to AIV for this edit, with a summary of "I am Russell Grant and I am appalled at the way you allow complete non-entities to change or add what they want. If this changes expect to hear from my lawyers." It's an IP so I'm not really sure how to handle it.. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

With a larf and, if needed, a civility block for calling people non-entities. But I think the general rule for IPs is a week-long block, longer if it appears static, but we don't "indef" block IPs (1 year) for legal threats, generally. That said, that article is quite horrible and needs large pieces excised. "Whilst performing on stage and in studio Russell was a gifted psychic and was studying astrology through Rita Szymanski, the then treasurer of the Astrological Lodge of Great Britain." Really, Wikipedia? edit: never mind, someone has chopped it to bits. Good. --Golbez (talk) 04:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone just went through and more or less gutted the article. But then that person is also being accused of being a sockpuppet, so who really knows. Either way, I brought it up here to get some feedback. Should we block the IP for a week, a year, or something else? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Just an update before I head to sleep: I semiprot'd the article for a week. Aside from heavy IP vandalism, there's also this legal threat, a potential sock who keeps editing, and all sorts of general absurdity going on there. And I'll keep an eye on it in the coming days. But still, what to do about that threat? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for a week. I templated it - not sure what to do about that, as the legal template says Indefinite, and it would look silly to change it to 1 week. Dougweller (talk) 06:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Always direct people claiming to be article subjects to OTRS, I think. 67.119.14.196 (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This is something we are too lax about imo. It should be like a NLT situation. Users claiming to be someone of note should be requested to stop doing it until they identify to OTRS, if they continue to claim they are a notable living person without identifying through OTRS they should be blocked until they either do or they drop the claim. Off2riorob (talk) 10:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't we also keep in mind wp:Don't overlook legal threats as well? It doesn't exactly endear ourselves to Mr. Grant if we immediately slap him with a block when he's trying to call our attention to shenanigans going on in his article (a BLP, at that). Ultimately, the complaint was valid, even if the manner of expressing it was not. Buddy431 (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone threatening a lawsuit over an incorrect birthdate is not really worth coddling. Certainly not one who refers to other people as "non-entities". And anyway, shouldn't he have been able to foresee his blocking? --Golbez (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm also strongly motivated to block his "business manager" [130] who has removed well-sourced information and added that tripe about him being a "gifted psychic". He's already received a few warnings, I see no reason not to drop the hammer. --Golbez (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

And although he doesn't like 1961 as his birthdate, I've reverted it to the date in the source, we look silly citing 1961 to a source that says 1951 on the word of an IP (or even the subject, who wouldn't be considered a RS for his birthdate). Dougweller (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This interview with him also supports 1951 - he mentions the year himself in the interview. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't object to the block under the circumstances, but I'd have made the notification a bit nicer, and referred the person to OTRS in addition to blocking. 67.119.14.196 (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Calvin Gibbs image

Resolved

File:Calvin Gibbs, charged with premeditated murder at FOB Ramrod, Kandahar.jpg This image was recently uploaded and added to Calvin Gibbs but the person in the image is Spc. Jeremy Morlock [131],[132],[133] another soldier NOT Gibbs. I have remove the image from the article and would like to ask an administrator to delete the File as it has false information that can not be corrected. IQinn (talk) 04:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the image as a (now) unused unfree image and also because the image name itself presents WP:BLP problems; the image is not from a reliable source so we indeed can't be sure that it shows the person it purports to. For future reference, WP:IFD or a speedy deletion tag would also have worked.  Sandstein  07:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked user using IPsock to leave an apology?

Resolved

 – User has offered apology, and will - hopefully - sign in as Vote (X) for Change (talk) to make an unblock request. TFOWR 12:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Attention for all Admins, correct me if I'm reading this edit wrongly but isn't it true that a blocked user [in this case, that blockee is Vote (X) for Change (talk · contribs)] is not allowed to edit anywhere of WP even if he is using an IP (91.84.220.22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) to do so? In any case, how about an apology? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 10:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If it really is that user, asking him to apologize for using an IP is not going to work. He should know that editing under an IP is wrong when he is blocked and shouldn't be done. How are you going to ask him to apologize if he is not sorry for it? Apologizing has got to come from him, not when he is asked. Bejinhan talks 10:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Template:Facepalm2 Dude, the blockee is using his IP to apologise, don't you get it? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 10:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think Dave1185 was asking whether an exception should be made (to the "no edits if indef blocked" rule) for apologies. I don't think so: it fails to address the behaviour that resulted in the indef block. However, I'd suggest we just apply WP:DENY and ignore this as, basically, trolling. TFOWR 10:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the quick reply, removing the blockee's trollish comment now per WP:DENY. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 10:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I thought he meant asking the user to apologize for using an IP sock. :p Bejinhan talks 11:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I apologise for the behaviour which led to the indef block. 91.84.220.22 (talk) 11:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That's excellent news! Log in as Vote (X) for Change (talk · contribs), and mention that as part of your {{unblock}} request. TFOWR 11:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It's also good to have another IP address to reference. This section sounds like a bank robber busting out of prison so he can go apologize to the bank he robbed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs seems to be saying I should keep one IP address. Seems a sensible suggestion as I'm not planning to participate in any more ballots.91.84.220.22 (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've blocked 91.84.220.22 as the logical next step is for the user to sign in as Vote (X) for Change (talk), and request an unblock (complete with the apology promised above). TFOWR 12:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Alright TFWOR, I'm going to reserved a big pinch of salt pending his actual return to apologise. Best. (Officer Barbrady: Alright people, there's nothing to see here so let's move along now!) --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• His "apology" (on his IP page) does not altogether inspire confidence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Raj Kumar Gupta basti

Resolved

 – via indef. block. Those insertions crossed the line of disruption. Materialscientist (talk) 10:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Raj Kumar Gupta basti (talk · contribs)'s userpage contains his personal info: mobile number, address, email address, family info, etc. As seen from the various warning on his talk page, he has been adding those info on articles as well, the last being at Portal talk:Current events here. I think it's time for a block. Bejinhan talks 10:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• FYI, I have removed that personal info from his user page, IMO this is the sort of problem coming out of editors from India, most of these struggling young people thinks that they can do all sorts of unabashed self-advertising/promotion wherever it is freely available on the internet. We just have to tell them nicely and then convince them to move on to Facebook, MySpace or Twitter, as those sites are primarily for the use of social networking. Right now, the question is... is he reading those warnings we've templated? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 10:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Well, it is very obvious he is not heeding all the warnings issued, per →this & →this edits. Time for an Admin to disable his ability to edit his own page(s)? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 12:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Syrthiss (talk) 12:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

TreasuryTag And KnowIG

I have been working on a User conduct RfC and have talked to the user (KnowIG) about it. They said that we can resolve most of the problems but he feels that there is one user who is not willing to work with him. That is TreasuryTag. That user and KnowIG have a history of not liking each other. I asked KnowIG about why his behavior was disruptive and if it was provoked, the discussion is below.

User_talk:KnowIG#Talkback

We can work out the issue with the two users who made the RfC but TreasuryTag still seems to be a problem for him, he seems uncomfortable with TT having contact with him. KnowIG and I would like to ask that an administrator or consensus determine that KnowIG and TT will not have contact to provoke behavior. KnowIG is willing to not have contact voluntarily and TT seems to not want to work with me. I will leave it at that. Joe Gazz84^user•_talk•^contribs•_{Editor Review} 12:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Changed transclusion to wikilink in the above.  Sandstein  12:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

1. This proposal is premature, since there is currently an open RfC on the conduct involved.
2. The RfC, which revers to the behaviour of KnowIG (talk · contribs), contains much evidence of poor conduct in which I was not remotely involved, for instance [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] (many more examples can be found in the "evidence" section of the RfC itself) and I am not clear how this proposal would prevent that sort of disruption.
3. KnowIG has been trotting around the site accusing me of "stalking" for some time. I would point out that such an unfounded allegation is "considered a serious personal attack" and I would expect this to be dealt with appropriately by an administrator.
4. KnowIG is perfectly capable of speaking for himself should he wish to, and I'm not clear as to how/why JoeGazz has become his agent.
5. Joe Gazz84 (talk · contribs) seems to have decided to canvass support for his proposal from multiple editors (though did not notify me), and I am unclear how/why he thought that such an attitude would be constructive. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 12:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

   I am trying to work with the other editors to solve this matter. I am also plan on closing the RfC once the other editors agree to the resolution since they were the ones in the RfC. I feel I am doing no wrong here. I received this message on his talkpage proving that the user TT is not willing to work with me, "Yes. Or, they can just do what I'm about to do in relation to your badgering me. Which is to say, piss off and do not edit my talkpage again." Joe Gazz84^user•_talk•^contribs•_{Editor Review} 12:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

   I am also plan [sic] on closing the RfC – er, no you're not, unless you can point to a policy which entitles you to. ...they were the ones in the RfC... – I think you'll find that I'm the one who started the RfC. Do you have any comment on the other points I made? ...proving that the user TT is not willing to work with me... – it didn't need proof. I made quite clear above that I am not willing to "work with you." I received this message on my talkpage – you did? Please prove that with a diff. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 12:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

   The message was on his talkpage, I apologize for that mistake. However I do not feel I have to respond to the points above. I do not there is a policy entitling you to close the RfC instead of me. I would like to now see a consensus, I don't want to go on about the points, I will leave this to consensus or administrator decision. I would however like to see KNOWIG's problem solved and I think it is fair that they are allowed to to not want contact from TT. This is a final statement on this matter from me unless comment is necessary to set a record straight, since I am an outsider in this situation, I think this is pretty reasonable because I know I would want no contact if someone was causing me to be disruptive. [139] shows a message from KnowIG stating T has harassed him. Joe Gazz84^user•_talk•^contribs•_{Editor Review} 12:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

   I do not there [sic] is a policy entitling you to close the RfC instead of me. OK. You said you intend on closing it soon. Which criterion here would you invoke to close the RfC at this point? ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 12:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

   Oh, and as for: I do not feel I have to respond to the points above. No, you don't have to argue your case. But refusal to do so makes it look pretty shabby. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 12:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Overall observation—Joe seems to have taken it upon himself to intervene in this matter, which – in the ordinary course of things – wouldn't be especially problematic, but unfortunately, the intervention in this case is taking just about the most lopsided and incompetent form conceivable.
  Joe appears to have no problem with the numerous blatantly disruptive edits KnowIG has made without my involvement at all. Nor does he seem to have a problem with the gross incivility, the vandalism, the deletion of others' talkpage messages and the reverting of formatting corrections with edit-summaries such as, "Who cares?"
  In fact, Joe's only interest appears to be in tossing around unfounded accusations of harassment and generally fawning over KnowIG, who is definitely a, if not the, guilty party here. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 12:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Having looked through this (and the RfC etc) I must admit that there seems to be some fault on both sides - although I would say that the main instigator seems to be KnowIG. TT, may I suggest that you don't communicate with KnowIG - and if you absolutely must revert KnowIG's edits, you use non-emotive, factual summaries? Ideally, it would be nice if you didn't need to revert (I'm sure there are other watchers on the pages) - and if necessary, it could be discussed politely on the article talk page for a consensus to be reached. However, that's all I'm going to say - there is a current RfC, which I might comment at if I get the chance to look in more detail at all that has happened -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair-use images of the Holocaust

There's a discussion going on here at files for deletion about the extent to which fair use can reasonably be claimed for images of the Holocaust. J Milburn began it as a discussion about just one image, but the same issues apply to most of the others we use. The discussion has taken a disturbing turn, with Rama claiming that the fair-use polices are somehow similar to Arbeit macht frei, and that some people just loathe working [140] (whatever that means).

Very few have joined in the discussion, so some fresh eyes would be greatly appreciated. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Rama's comment seems to be borderline trolling but there are reasonable arguments both for and against keeping this image. Rhetoric in general on that page should probably be taken down a notch. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• @Slim; characterizing the FfD debate as one regarding all Holocaust images is false. It's a discussion about one image, and one image alone. Concur with JoshuaZ; the rhetoric needs to be dropped a bunch of notches. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, using the phrase Arbeit macht frei, which may safely be said to be the harbinger of death of hundreds of thousands, if not millions (see Auschwitz concentration camp) of Jews, in any context outside of the discussion of Nazi atrocities, is at best an example of gross insensitivity or ignorance, and at worst, deliberate trolling of the highest order. -- Avi (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Miacek

According to his userpage User:Miacek is inactive since August 2010. Nethertheless he made a number of edits recently [141]. On 11 September he made errenous changes to the article on Erika Steinbach, a German politician, which I corrected [142]. On 14 September he tagged information in the Template:Infobox Kosovo War [143]. Obviously confusing belligerents with combatants, he questioned Montenegro's part in the war but not Serbia's, which is also listed as a federal entity of Yugoslavia. As such differences about content have triggered edit-wars in the past, I refrain from getting involved in this issue. Alas, I do not like to be accussed being a "stalker" [144] by a user who easily takes offense [145] and has a history of harassing other users [146]. Since I am not familiar with procedures in cases like this, I hope an admin can help solving this issue. --红卫兵 (talk) 12:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This 'report' by an ostensible newbie is yet another undertaking in his long campaign of harassing me that has been going on for months. That's why I added the explanation on my user page that I'm inactive. 红卫兵 is clearly a reincarnation of the troll that was harassing me in August, eventually forcing me to cease editing.
His first edits with his new account were directed against me. Now, I made a few minor edits, only to be reverted by the troll (of course he had never edited that page before, he has been following my edits and doing his best to disrupt all of my contributions, no matter how small). The prelude can be seen here. Two admins agreed back then that I was being harassed, but as the impotent or incompetent sysops failed to take any action, the troll feels he can continue like that in impunity. In this very (malicious) report, he reveals what he's really up to: According to his userpage User:Miacek is inactive since August 2010. Nethertheless he made a number of edits recently That's exactly the real goal of this single purpose account with his bunch of IPs: to scare me off the project. Obviously, as an experienced editor I feel sick and tired, as the administration has done absolutely nothing to stop this kind of behaviour. That's all I have to say right now. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 14:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

User:212.156.67.30

Cross-wiki harassment and personal attacks. For details, see: User_talk:JamesBWatson#Personal_attack. If you need further information, please feel free to ask me. Your assistance will be much appreciated. Pinar (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Range block possible?

I have been diligently reverting an IP hopping editor who is consistently adding unsourced ethnic, religious, and descent categories to biography articles against WP:EGRS guidelines and WP:BLP/WP:V policies. A small portion of the range was previously blocked as a result of this ANI discussion. Is there any way to get a more extensive and longer term rangeblock on the 166.216.130.xx range? I discussed the issue with an admin (User:Paul Erik), who suggested I bring the matter here for review. Note that I have left clear edit summaries pointing the IP to WP:EGRS and have also left messages pointing them to the relevant policies (example). With regard to notifying the IP of this discussion, should I just pick one of their addresses at random? I'm not sure what the protocol would be in this situation. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think a rangeblock would be necessary here. I had a look at the Rangeblock calculator and the range is 166.216.130.0/25, which means that only half of the users in the 166.216.130.xx range will be blocked (and the other half i.e. from 166.216.130.128 to 166.216.130.255 will be free to edit). Minimac (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It can be further reduced if you use two rangeblocks: 166.216.130.0/26 and 166.216.130.64/27 which will cover 166.216.130.0 -- 166.216.130.94, which is 96 IPs instead of 128, FWIW. As an aside, the block, if applied, must be a softblock, as there would be a lot of collateral damage on the 166.216.130.0/25 range. -- Avi (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem is not yet finished, even 5 months now. Clear this problem as soon as possible

This is the sequel of the old AnI topic from April 2008: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive608#Disruptive_editing_of_Channel_3_.28Thailand.29_and_Myanmar_Radio_and_Television_by_IP_range

I'm American editor that edited Magyar Televízió, Vietnam Television, Channel 3 (Thailand) and some other TV stations from many countries, and I claimed Burma got television in 1969 (now proved false). This is where I got these information to claim on Wikipedia:

• Magyar Televízió: I can't remember.
• Vietnam Television: As above.
• Channel 3 as NBN3: From my experiance from TV. But TV3 is no longer a part of NBN since March 2010, it's now an independence television station since NBN is bought by a Vietnamese company. But we don't need to create NBN article if we don't have references even it exists.
• Myanmar: I have not added the schedules from 1969, I have added 2 schedules from 1980 and 1984. But I said Burma got TV in 1969. All of these informations are from the old Burmese newspapers (in Burmese) I have 2 issues, 1980 and 1984. (My friend's company hires Burmese workers, I brought some wasted old newspaper to home). I don't really know the schedule, but I just guess it from time - there are not so much programs. In 1984 issue have an advertisement, with numbers "15", and the MTV's old logo (as TVB - Television of Burma), and the birthday cake! What can it be other than 15th birthday of MTV? I will search for that newspaper. I read that many years ago. And I will upload the advertisement to the file upload website.

In 2010 (this year) but in later months, I will go back to the United States so you will see the different IP.--125.25.251.159 (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)