Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive576

Axmann8 returns

Axmann8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Here [1] asks for an unblock. He admits to block evasion since his block, and claims his block was "politically motivated". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this sums it up nicely. TNXMan 16:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ja! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Since he admits to evading his block, I wonder if it's time to re-open the SPI on that guy? Maybe I've been falsely blaming PCH for stuff that Axmann has been doing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It would probably be worth it just to sort out which edits belong to which editor. I'm also curious to see these "constructive contributions" that Axmann claims to have made. TNXMan 19:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I was in communication with Axmann and attempted to help him adapt to and understand Wikipedia culture back in march before he was indefinitely blocked, I'll chime in with a note here: My efforts to help rehabilitate him were greatly hindered by the constant attention some people decided to give him (I'm definitely looking at you here, Bugs, but you weren't alone). Constant AN/I posts for every potential misstep, especially where admins are already well aware of the situation, are not helpful. I believe he could have been counseled to become a productive editor, but it would require peace and quiet for some time and an understanding that he will make further mistakes during mentorship. henrik•talk 19:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm all in favor of giving every opportunity and extending good faith. How Axmann was chased off was unseemly. But I think an editor who chooses a Nazi username would be pushing our limits even if the political climate on this site wasn't as partisan and antagonistic to those who don't toe the dominant liberal/leftist world view. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it only fair to point out that most of the conservative/rightist editors in Wikipedia have little if any more tolerance for Naziism than the liberal/leftist ones (who I see no signs of constituting a majority, unless you measure liberal/left with an AnnCoultermeter). --Orange Mike | Talk 00:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That was the point I was trying to make. Sorry if I was unclear. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit war over courtesy blanking

Resolved

All that's left is for someone to record this edit war for WP:LAME Beeblebrox (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

In July 2008, Shalom Yechiel (talk · contribs) ran for adminship. It did not go well, owing in large part to his acknowledged history of abusive sockpuppetry and vandalism. Because of the unpleasantness of the whole thing, it was courtesy blanked at its close. It remained so-blanked until yesterday, when Altenmann (talk · contribs) (previously SemBubenny, previously Mikkalai) unblanked it with the edit summary "no courtesy for abusive accounts". This struck me as vindictive and not a little POINTy, so I reverted him; a brief edit war ensued. I raised the matter with Altenmann on his talk page, and it rapidly became clear that we're not going to come to agreement on this, so I'm reluctantly bringing it to the drama boards. Steve Smith (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This user is going to one way or another find themselves in trouble with ArbCom again if they don't allow it to remain courtesy blanked. Any suspicions regarding sockpuppetry are dealt with via SSP and confirmed sock tags; RFA content is not part of that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Please write clearly, who is "this user"? - Altenmann >t 16:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

My comment is quite clear if you made the effort to read it in full. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Your comment is uncivil. Dodging a question is disrespect. - Altenmann >t 17:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of dodging questions when the answer is perfectly obvious to everyone else reading is uncivil. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If it is obvious, spell it. No, you prefer to have fun of bickering. FUI "Obvious to everyone else" implies that if it is not obvious to me then I am a freaking moron who can be safely beaten on his head without bothering to answer. - Altenmann >t 20:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

My position was explained in my talk page and edit summaries. Instead of countering my argument in a civil way in a talk page, mr Smith engaged in a revert war and escalated to ANI. I am wondering whether he has ulterior motives here in protecting an abusive account, whose dubious actions do not limit to sockpuppetting. I am repeating it again: activities of an abusive account must be searchable. People who abuse wikipedia go lengths to cover their tracks. This is a discourtesy to wikipedia to help them with courtesies. Sockpuppetry is not a mewbie mistake or a heated political or personql discussions a person can just say "sorry" afterwards. Sockpuppetry is a premeditated disruption, and I cannot believe such a person can be reformed and rehabilitated without solid proof. - Altenmann >t 16:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I "escalated" to ANI only when it became apparent that, owing to our very differing perspectives on the importance of punishing Enemies of Wikipedia, we were not going to come to agreement ourselves. Your suggestion of "ulterior motives" on my part is bizarre and not worth a response. Steve Smith (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The comment about "ulterior motives" was a logical consequence of your apparent lack of desire to carry out a civilized discussion between two colleague wikipedians. It seems that you base your actions on reading other's mind, rathren than on an open and honest discussion. I am ready to talk to you about guilt and punishment in wikipedia. However it is irrelevant to my clearly stated reason: it was not punishment, it was accountability. More details of my position are in this section. And I don't see anybody really countering my arguments. - Altenmann >t 17:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You talk about Steve Smith's ulterior motives, then accuse him of basing his actions on reading others mind? The only logical conclusion that can be deduced from your responses is that you are making chronic assumptions of bad faith. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not making assumptions: I am making conclusions: the person refused to engage in an exchange of arguments, of kind what is going on here. Are you saying he did it of good faith? It is "apparent" to him that we cannot come to common conclusions, without a single exchange "argument-counterargument". Call it "reading my mind" or "jumping to conclusions", whatever; you seem to know English way better than me. - Altenmann >t 17:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Bibliomaniac15 (talk · contribs) courtesy blanked the RFA on 18 July 2009. Over the last 48hrs, you have unilaterally attempted to unblank the RFA without discussing it (or "exchanging arguments") with Bibliomaniac15 or anyone else. In doing so, your edit appeared pointy, and was reverted. Instead of correcting your approach and starting a discussion with Bibliomaniac15, Steve Smith, or a general one on the RFA talk page, you reverted again demanding that Steve Smith ask you what you were attempting to do. Steve Smith once again reverted as it was considered sensitive enough to be blanked when it was. He also formally asked you on your talk page for an explanation. Instead of discussing this with him and coming to a consensus, you provided one reply, and chose to continue reverting - that method of communication is neither appropriate, nor acceptable in Wikipedia, especially for administrators. Steve Smith was left with no alternative but to bring it here when your communication was so exceptionally problematic that no consensus could emerge. It appears that you were making assumptions that Steve Smith would automatically agree with your reply - the fact is he did not, and you exercised poor judgement. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Your historiography is false. Obviously, you are biased towards Smith and against me, and I see no point to talk to a self-appointed wikilawyer. If Smith wanted to have a logical dispute or a mediation with me, he is welcome. - Altenmann >t 18:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Per policy WP:DP, "Courtesy blanking, history blanking or oversighting should be rare, and it should be performed only after due consideration is given to issues of fairness." I don't think anyone can come up with a very good reason why an acknowledged socker and vandal should have his/her RfA blanked for "fairness". I recommend we just leave it as unblanked, and all walk away from the battle here. Tan | 39 16:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed, they are searchable. The entire history of the RfA is available to anyone who clicks on the "history" tab. TNXMan 16:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Searches in histories are extremely tedious, even in a single page, not to say in many. - Altenmann >t 16:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The page in question, in the "oppose" votes gives a clear summary of objections to the behavior of this account from the whole wikipedia community. Did anybody ask any represenative selection of voters whether they want their contributions blanked? - Altenmann >t 16:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If I understand the discussion at User talk:Altenmann correctly; the reason you want to unblank this after so many months is because you believe this user is actively disrupting the encyclopedia right now? Can you give some more details about that? If he is, direct action will probably be more useful. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to the issue. - Altenmann >t 17:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Really? I think that the question of whether you're resurrecting the blanked RfA of a long-gone, inactive user who wishes only to disappear, or a currently disruptive user, is kind of important to this issue. Plus, if there is disruption happening now, I think we'd all like to stop it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Really. If I had more to say, I'd have done this in an appropriate place. I stated my reasons several times. - Altenmann >t 17:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, many important arbitration cases are courtesy blanked, despite some of the most problematic users extreme socking. So the argument that "searches in histories are extremely tedious" really isn't going to justify edit-warring to resurrect a courtesy blanked RFA. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The last known SY citing was as User:Larry Sanger must be heard at 16:57, 8 April 2009. Hipocrite (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This confirms my suspicions that this "disappeared" user is alive and roaming wikipedia. - Altenmann >t 17:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not sure why you would've expected a user to be dead merely because they thought they were invoking their right to vanish from Wikipedia. The account Hipocrite refers to has not edited Wikipedia for the last 7 months; FisherQueen's question remains unanswered by you despite being relevant. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with expectations. It is about testing a hypothesis, whether the vanished person did it for good or just hiding their tracks. - Altenmann >t 17:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The last edit made by the account associated with the RFA candidate was in April. You have repeatedly unblanked the RFA after so many months because you believe this user is actively disrupting the encyclopedia right now. Can you explain why you think so - that is, what other accounts do you think are associated with the RFA candidate? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant to the issue. See above. I gave my reasons. In addition to the above, given the amount of wikilawyering, I don't want face accusations of personal attacks if I start venting my suspicions without solid proofs. - Altenmann >t 17:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Good faith concerns are unlikely to be passed off as personal attacks unless no reasonable person would find your suspicions justifiable or understandable. WP:SSP explains that "solid proofs" is not what is required. Answers to my (and FisherQueen's) question remains very relevant to the incident you've created here - your refusal to answer it further highlights problems with the community's ability to communicate with you. If you are unable to answer my question, then you need to self-revert this edit that you made to avoid escalating this further. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

My ability to communicate with aggressive and biased wikilawyers is limited. Your behavior further convinces me that posting any suspicions about existing accounts will bring me only more grievance. - Altenmann >t 18:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I strongly object to being called an "agressive and biased wikilawyer" for asking what I believe to be a very reasonable question. I object, on a less personal level, to your continuing to refuse to answer the question in any way, or even to give a hint of why you don't want to answer. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Care to notice that it was not you who was addressed as wikilawyer. Please also care to notice that the sidetracking activities of this person prevented you from seeing my further answer to your question. - Altenmann >t 20:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still don't see an answer to the question of which user you think is a sockpuppet of the person in question; the only thing even a little relevant to the question that I see is the information that he was active seven months ago, before the RfA was blanked, but that didn't come from you and doesn't indicate how the person is disrupting now. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone going to give any arguments as to why this particular RfA deserves to be courtesy blanked? I have no reason to be on Altenmann's side here, but it seems like a silly argument - beating around the periphery on searchable pages or past Arbcom cases - when there's really no good reason for this to have happened in the first place. Tan | 39 17:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason is courtesy. It was an acrimonious and unpleasant experience for most involved, and was therefore best blanked. Steve Smith (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

By that reasoning, we would blank ANI on a regular basis. Even the policy itself does not say that we do it solely as a "courtesy"; it needs to be fair. I don't see any reason why it is "unfair" to leave this RfA unblanked. Tan | 39 17:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't overly happy with the results of my RfA, can we courtesy blank it too?  ;-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, mine too while were at it. --SKATER ^Speak. 19:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some insight from the admin who courtesy blanked the RFA may be of value, here. Was there discussion at the time? Also, I'm still unclear on the purpose served by un-blanking it - is there evidence of current or recent shenanigans that evidence at an old RFA would support? The evidence remains in the history, if it is necessary for some ongoing project (like filing an RFAR, for example), and blanking or unblanking the page does not change that. The candidate's issues are well-documented indeed, it seems unlikely that someone inclined to research them would not find the RFA. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you are wrong. History search is not as easy as it seems. It took me quite some time to find this particular blanked page when I was researching this account. (May be it was because I am that stupid...) - Altenmann >t 19:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Question. Does blanking hide the page in some way or does it just mean that one has to click on the history to see the content? --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It does hide the page from web-based search tools, unless one writes a smart bot to search page histories, but this would place a big burden on wikipedia servers. - Altenmann >t 19:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I did not know that. In which case I would support unblanking the page (unless there are other undisclosed reasons for blanking) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

RFA pages are not indexed anyway, so blanking/unblanking doesn't make a difference as far as search engines are concerned. Abecedare (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the same goes for arbitration pages, even though they are routinely courtesy blanked. Perhaps requesting clarification from arbs on why they do so will help clarify the content issue here. In the meantime, there are conduct issues which the user is not acknowledging, and appears unlikely to address them. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest ignoring the conduct issue. Altenmann unblanked the page and was reverted with the summary "I have no idea what you're trying to do here." He/she got miffed, reverted, and suggested asking first. Steve Smith asked and immediately reverted. The entire situation was less than optimal but totally understandable since the two editors were approaching the unblanking with entirely different world views. Best to let it pass. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The conduct issue goes beyond mere edit-warring and it is within this very discussion. It is the admin-corps refusal to consistently enforce civility policy at these noticeboard discussions that has led to the perception that ANI and dispute resolution needs to be restructured, and the other perception that admins are incapable of enforcing much of anything. I guess it would be entirely understandable if someone criticised you for actions you (didn't) take, and you turned around and called them an aggressive and biassed self-appointed wikilawyer - not just once either. And let's just imagine you were admonished by ArbCom "to respond promptly and civilly to questions and comments regarding your actions"; that should be ignored because it doesn't bring the project into disrepute? Nevertheless, I will follow your suggestion - for the record, that means I am washing my hands of this thread completely. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I think the point is that most people are not inclined to do the research so it should be easy for them to see the history of the user. That said, almost anyone who sees a 'courtesy blanked' will know to look at the history (and that blanking ==> messy!). I don't see the big deal in blanking but I can see the point that obviously disruptive editors should not be automatically entitled to 'courtesy'.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Is Shalom Yechiel the editors real name ? If so I am all in favor of courtesy blanking. If not, and especially if the user hasn't truly vanished, why are arguing over this ? Abecedare (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If it were a real name and the concern was privacy, then there are proper procedures for this. Page blanking is not among them. - Altenmann >t 19:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not arguing for blanking or unblanking; I think debating it to such length (either ways) is WP:LAME especially since there don't seem to be any strong arguments for keeping this page blanked or unblanked. For example the three editor reviews for the account, as well as the user page, are all blanked and no one seems to care. Anyway, I'll follow my own advice and step back from this discussion. Abecedare (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

...Don't mean to be blunt, but I would much rather not waste time with this quibbling. Quite frankly it's not my concern whether it stays blanked or if it doesn't, it would be Shalom's concern. As he has not edited in seven months, and there is no evidence so far that he has returned, don't see what the fuss is all about. Everything is still in the history, as long as nothing is deleted there really isn't a difference. Do what you will, but leave me out of this. bibliomaniac15 21:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This is rank lameness. I have blanked and protected the RfA. Comments about the propriety of that action may be made here or on my talk page. I would suggest that participants simply disengage, work on content or at the very lest find something marginally less crazy to argue about. Protonk (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Concern regarding the use of admin powers by Protonk

Resolved

There is no need for any admin action at this time, if further discussion of Chil of Midnight's actions are needed, an RFC is the place for it. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Protonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) reverted my edits with insulting edit comment, rather than discussing the issue. Immediately after that he protected the page. This act is an abuse of admin privileges. I request Protonk reprimanded and his actions undone. - Altenmann >t 22:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• that was fast. Protonk (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Protonk, I think it would be best to unprotect so we can all avoid another drama? Or not. Anyway, it doesn't look great that you reverted and then protected. But maybe there is a good explanation? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This is clean and simple abuse of admin powers, according to an unambiguous wikipedia policy. Do you want me to cite it or you know where it sits yourself? A "good explanation" in such cases must be imminent threat of disruption of wikipedia, no less. You call it derisively "drama". I call it blatant disregard of a fellow wikipedian. - Altenmann >t 22:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The explanation should be self evident. It is a stupid thing to edit war and argue over, but evidently that fact hasn't been impressed upon the participants of the discussion. I'm just cutting the gordian knot and allowing people who I assume to be otherwise productive and collegial editors getting back to whatever it is they normally do. If the fact that the page itself is blank/non-blank is so distressing to the particular parties that they have to argue about it even after some option is foreclosed, then that is a separate problem. Protonk (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion what is stupid and what is not, but this gives you no right to violate the rules of admin's actions. Also, in case you failed to notice, the edit war was over for some time, until you contributed to it without adding extra arguments. - Altenmann >t 22:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Protonk was not an involved/intersted party, no admin abuse to be seen here. He performed an administrative action (reverting to status quo ante and protecting the page) to end a silly revert war. Shereth 22:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverting is editing. Protecting your own action is abuse. Again, at the moment there was no revert war. There was discussion in this board. Reverting amid a discussion is blatant disrespect to people seriously engaged. It is not my fault that a certaiun person littered the section with digressions from the section topic. The discussion was about a serious issue whether an abusive user has rights to cover their tracks. Several respectable wikipedians have no disagreement with my action. - Altenmann >t 23:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Protonk was involved as soon as he reverted someone elses edit wasn't he? If there was edit warring why didn't he just protect the page. I don't understand how he can choose a side and then claim to be uninvolved. And let it be known that I haven't looked at and don't care about the content dispute itself. But Protonk's actions sure don't look good and no explanation has been forthcoming. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There was no edit warring when protonk jumped in; moreover, talks were started in a section above. - Altenmann >t 23:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If there was no edit warring why was the page protected? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointer to the above thread. This should probably be combined with that one as they are related. It doesn't look like any answer is going to be forthcoming from you or Protonk on why he deemed it appropriate to revert to his preferred version of a dispute page and then to protect it. I think some acknowledgment from Protonk that unilateral reverting and protecting of disputed pages is improper, otherwise he needs to be blocked for the prevention of any further damage or disruptiong of the encyclopedia. I suggested an acknowlegment of the mistake here right off the bat, but unfortunately he's stuck to his guns so far. That's distressing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Shereth here. I don't think Protonk's action here was problematic. He was uninvolved in the dispute. He returned the page to its pre-existing state (status quo ante) and then protected it, presumably to prevent a similar edit war from occurring over the page in the future. If his protection after reversion is that big of a deal (although I don't think it is), it is easily remedied. I have undid his protection and reimposed it. Now I'm the one who has protected the page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what the fuss is about here:

1. Bibliomaniac (admin) decides to courtesy-blank it.
2. Altenmann decides Bibliomaniac had no right to do so, and rather than discussing it, unilaterally overrides (incredibly disrespectful).
3. Steve Smith tries to fix it, returning to how it had rested for over a year, and Altenmann wars.
4. Protonk restores it to the previous admin-set status, and protects it against further inappropriate edits.

How is bookkeeping a 'content dispute'? Are you saying I can open up old arbcom cases and try adding more evidence or arguments after they're closed? Point is, this isn't an article, or even a discussion page. It's a closed RfA. Just because someone got it into his head that he can screw around with it a year after the fact doesn't suddenly mean that all admins are somehow barred from correcting its status and protecting. Yeesh, lighten up. :)
(On a side note: the edit summary is not insulting. WP:LAME is a classic wikipedia commentary on when people are squabbling over something of little to no importance. I think the precise mechanism for treating a year-old RfA certainly qualifies. 139.57.101.207 (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that when there is a dispute editors are expected to use dispute resolution. Admins are not above the rules. If they want to engage in the discussion great. If they want to mediate, fantastic. But they are expected to refrain from imposing their preference and then using their tools. Doing so is abuse, plain as it comes, whether we agree or disagree with the version they choose to enforce or their logic for doing so. Process needs to be respected otherwise the common editor gets shat on as we've seen repeatedly recently. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• As noted last night, this is CoM's new and self-appointed role; AN/I gadfly, with these insipid calls for blocks of admins who do things he doesn't like. Tarc (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That's hardly constructive, Tarc. I still assume CoM is acting entirely in good faith; I'm just not sure I agree with the point here is all.

CoM: Seriously, if I decide to go to old Arbcom cases and start adding more evidence to old cases, just because I think it's better that way, should I really be allowed to do that? Because I don't personally see this as a content dispute. An admin decided how to leave the RfA. A year later, after there was nothing of value to be gained, altenmann gave a figurative "screw you" to bibliomaniac and unilaterally changed it. All protonk did is enforce the clerical decision of bibliomaniac (at least, in my view).

So maybe it'd help if you do tell me what should be done if I start editing old (long-closed) arbcom cases? Let me do it until absolutely all possible discussion has been exhausted? 139.57.101.207 (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree; and ChildofMidnight, I suggest that you do make an effort to be a little bit more reasonable in your demands. Protonk did not protect the version "he preferred", he protected the status quo ante version, which is really the fairest thing for an admin to do in the circumstances. Otherwise it rewards the user who was edit warring who performed the last edit and punishes the user who "gave up" on the edit war. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Since you are giving an admin a choice, it rewards admin's tastes. "WRONG VERSION" rule was introduced for a reason. What is more, nobody "gave up", but rather initiated a discussion with broader participation, which is in fact a commendable act, and by the way, recommended in wikipedia guidelines. Good Ol’factory's reprotection is an instructive example of "admin cabal" buddy-buddy in action. - Altenmann >t 00:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I am out of here, disgusted. - Altenmann >t 00:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Altenmann is absolutely correct. We, mere peon editors, have all had the "WRONG VERSION" mantra lectured at us, yet when an admin wants the "status quo ante" version they can just revert and protect. Could someone please point to the policy page that suggests it's okay for admins to revert to "status quo ante" in a dispute? If there isn't one then it's clear abuse. And Admins abusing their tools in this way is not appropriate and neither is making up rules and excuses as you go along to support one another. The fact is that was a dispute over which page of the version should be maintained (see above thread for arguments on both sides) so Protonk had no business imposing his preferred version and then protecting. I'm sorry, but it's indefensible (unless of course there is in fact a "status quo ante" policy, is that latin for Admins get to decide how they want things because they're the ones with tools?). ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I really was asking seriously earlier. (I know I sometimes come across as hostile or 'troll-y', but it's really not intentional) Would you still be having this conversation if I wanted to start adding evidence to an old (long-closed) arbcom case? or a closed poll that had already finished? Or would you concede that there's such a thing as bookeeping, that I don't get to interfere with? 139.57.101.207 (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem with your question is that it doesn't have anything to do with propriety of the admin action that took place in this instance. The page was not archived, it was a courtesy blanked RfA. And the dispute was over whether it should be blanked or not. So Protonk acted improperly by deciding that it should be blanked, making it so, and then protecting it. He is welcome to use dispute resolution, to mediate, or to protect the "wrong" version. But it's not okay for him to impose his will because he happens to have tools. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

So... you're saying that it's implied that closed RfAs are still open to edits? Even if people don't bother archiving every closed RfA, I think it's still safe to say that people know the matter is closed. (Archiving or protecting them immediately would kinda imply the assumption that someone would come down the line to fiddle with it just for ha-ha's) I still see this as normal bookeeping, but I also won't fault you for disagreeing.

On a side note, however, I feel I must protest the renaming of this section. Even though I think protonk behaved admirably and correctly, there's no need for the heading to be neutral when an editor feels they've been wronged. They think power was abused, and want input on that, so it's a logical heading. 139.57.101.207 (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

How about this? I'll take responsibility for protecting it. I didn't participate in that RFA, I didn't participate in the courtesy blanking, I didn't participate in this dramabomb, but I am bloody well sick and tired of you, CoM, creating strife and discontent on AN/I every single day. Horologium (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that protection should go to whatever version is up at the time, not to a prior status quo. This seems confirmed by the wording of WP:PROTECT. Protonk's actions were incorrect here. This doesn't seem to be serious but it is clearly against policy and general practice. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Topic Ban proposed

I would like to propose a topic ban on ChildofMidnight; CoM is prohibited from posting to any administrator noticeboards or their talk pages for a period of six months. Input requested. Horologium (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)That's incredibly excessive and far less than practical. Are you really saying that CoM shouldn't have any methods of addressing concerns, even if he/she (sorry, don't actually know your gender) is legitimately wronged? If you don't like what CoM is saying, nobody is forcing you to read it. But to take away a person's speech just because you find it tedious... I don't recall seeing that in any of the policy pages or guidelines... 139.57.101.207 (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

There is precedent for this. Everyking was banned by arbcom from commenting on Phil Sandifer due to continued vexatious and ill-researched commentary. He was also banned from the admin noticeboards for a substantial period of time due to essentially the same thing. It should be noted that admin noticeboards are not by any means the only way of adddressing concerns - just the most confrontational. Moreschi (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I may have slightly overstated the severity (stupid mistake confession: I read "or their talk pages" as referring to the talk pages of all admins, rather than the noticeboards). But I still think this is a very dangerous idea.

Even though I think CoM has been 'calling out' far too many people lately, I still believe there lies great value in accountability. Even accountability to the somewhat paranoid. Banning anyone who criticizes the 'higher-ups' here sends a very bad message.

I guess I can sum it up this way: If CoM is being so disruptive and is interfering so much with the ability to get things done, there must be specific actionable... uh... actions. If not, that suggests that you're making a mountain out of a molehill here. :) I just don't see such a drastic action being in the best interests of the project as a whole. 139.57.101.207 (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, no. Like CoM, you fail to understand the enormous diversity of opinions even within the admin corps, let alone the wider community. If something is wrong, you can be pretty sure you'll be called out on it rationally, and you should have to justify yourself to that. But right now CoM's commentary is, as you note, extremely paranoid and factually sloppy. His wildly OTT cries of "INAPPROPRIATE DESYSOP OMG" are simply disrupting the smooth functioning of process ,and are actually hindering normal review processes: I know I'd be much less likely to voice an opinion critical of an admin's action if CoM had earlier posted one of his rants, not wanting to be tarred with the same brush as such silliness. Moreschi (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I would request that you be a bit more cordial with your replies. You've already referred to Soxwon as "doing a CoM", and now you're lumping me in with him/her as well, in addition to telling me what I 'fail to understand'. I fully sympathize that you are dealing with very different personalities at the moment, and it's hard to keep matching your tone to the particular person you're addressing, but I'm taking great pains to be fair and respectful to all parties (whether I agree with them or not), and I'd ask you to do the same. That includes not painting myself and Soxwon with the same brush as CoM.

Back on topic, I'm not claiming that CoM is currently making very good assertions, but I feel the ability to do so is very important. So what if CoM cries,"DESYSOP! DESYSOP!"? If the cry is absurd, then it will be recognized as such. That small act is a small price to pay for the knowledge that anyone, however misguided, can always call for accountability, even when everything's pretty much fine.

Let's use this original thread as an example. Protonk makes a good decision. Two editors find fault with it. The rest applaud it. No harm done.

New version to consider: Protonk makes the same decision. The moment CoM criticizes it, he/she is banned from ever expressing dissent again. How would that make Protonk's action look? So long as I'm allowed to say that Protonk abused his(her?) power, it's easy for his actions to stand up to the highest scrutiny. But the instant you discourage scrutiny, you surrender credibility.

Sorry, but when I look at what would be gained, an what would be lost, it seems like an easy decision to me. That said, a RfC may very well be in order. 139.57.101.207 (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I apologise for causing offence. I think it is a good illustration of how memes CoM spreads can easily catch on, like the "admin hivemind" meme: it might seem superficially attractive, but 5 minutes investigated reveals it to be very silly. Nevertheless, I am sorry.

The problem here is time-wasting. If we endorse a culture whereby all admin actions are automatically suspect until proven otherwise, then we also endorse a culture whereby each admin has to defend their actions at enormous length in the face of even the most implausible allegations, which leads to enormous loss of time and significant brain drain from the encyclopedia. As we can see at a recent thread here, CoM's repeated refusal to understand a very basic point (how nationalist POV-pushers are dealt with, and more basically the fundamental nature of consensus) led to an enormous drain of time from multiple admins who would far rather be doing something else. There comes a point when scrutiny so ill-directed is not scrutiny, but simply time-wasting, and hence disruptive. Moreschi (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I sympathize greatly, I really do. (I'll concede that I didn't even read it all. I got down as far as FPaS making it clear that the comments were unwelcome, and the next couple of responses, and felt pretty confident that I got the gist of it) At the very least, I don't think this is the best venue for deciding what to do about it. I know it's been said before, so I'll say it again: RfC. You really may have a very good argument here, but I'd feel more comfortable with it being handled formally, rather than an admin 'laying the smackdown' on the admin noticeboard in response to criticism of admins. (I don't doubt that you can probably get the result you're looking for, so couldn't you give RfC a try? Or am I still a bit too naive as to how effective RfCs actually are?) 139.57.101.207 (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Quite possibly, but each RFC is different and some have had useful results. It is, of course, worth a try. Moreschi (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

...Over-reaction much? Soxwon (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Please take a look at the discussions currently appearing on the AN/I page, and note how many of them CoM has been at the center of. His behavior is disruptive, and topic bans are an appropriate method of dealing with disruption. He is a good content contributor, but his participation on AN/I (in particular) is a huge time-sink. Horologium (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That's b/c half of these threads revolve around Ottava, Malleus, and the actions around them. CoM hasn't been warned, been taken to an RFC or had any action directed at him to this point. Just topic-banned for six months out of the blue. That's bullshit no matter who it is. Soxwon (talk) 01:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

CoM has accused Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) of admin abuse (has nothing to do with Malleus), accused Protonk (talk · contribs) of admin abuse (has nothing to do with Malleus), has called for the desysop of Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs) (repeatedly in the same thread, which is only tangentially related to Malleus), and participated in three separate threads about Who then was a gentleman? (talk · contribs); those are just the threads in which he has multiple contributions. (I note now that the FPAS thread has been archived, as it's more than 12 hours since the last post.) Horologium (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

GWH is directly related to Malleus' controversial block, WTWAG has had a history with Malleus and made a rather ill-advised edit to Malleus' take page. Soxwon (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No, now you are doing a CoM: you are not bothering to do your research. Nobody has been topic-banned here. Horologium has simply proposed one for discussion. Nothing has been implemented. Moreschi (talk) 01:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You're being nonsensical, this discussion is taking place. There has been no warning for the behaviour, no RFC/U, nothing. This is absolute horse waste Soxwon (talk) 02:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Inadequate: given this, which was only notable for its sheer sloppiness of thought as he accused me of being "involved" when I blocked a SPA who edited economics articles when even a brief review of the relevant contributions would have told him I have never edited a single economics-related article, nor had I interacted even once with the editor I blocked, the ban should cover commenting on RFAR except in cases where he is directly involved. I have no problem with my actions being reviewed but only if the reviewer bothers to do his research and isn't just lazily firing off blanks in my general direction because he has a bee in his bonnet about "abusive admins". Moreschi (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This kind of behavior is unfortunately par for the course with C of M (at least from where I sit), and there are literally several dozen previous examples. But I don't think an outright topic ban from these boards is the way to go. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight is a redlink and probably it should not be. Many folks (including myself) have expressed frustration with his methods of communication, to put it mildly, while noting that he does good article work, AfD work, etc. Some polling of the community on these matters might be useful. My past encounters with C of M rose to such a level of unpleasantness that I chose to avoid interacting with him altogether, but if one or two other editors are interested in starting a user conduct RfC I would be willing to co-certify (or whatever they call it these days) and dig up some diffs. I have "tried but failed to resolve the problem" with C of M about 37 different times so I think I would qualify as one able to certify an RfC. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I have not turned the RFC into a blue link is because I have an extremely limited history with CoM, and am unable to certify an RFC, one of the requirements to file. An RFC is not a prerequisite for a topic ban, although it would be if I was proposing a siteban. Horologium (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

One rule for Prof. R. Brews another rule for ChildofMidnight here on Wikipedia. Was RickK right after all? Count Iblis (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, if you guys want input on CoM (ie, are requesting comment on CoM), then turn the RfC link into a blue link. I don't know the situation, but this has been developing into a massive series of threads on ANI, when RfC would be a much more appropriate venue.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 02:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest that we read WP:WRONG prior to making sweeping judgments about what is/isn't a content dispute and what does or does not constitute a "preferred revision"? Protonk (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Just as we don't jump straight to arbitration, we also should not jump to a community sanction without attempting dispute resolution first. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight would be a good place to start. If the user gets feedback, perhaps they will agree to improve their style and no sanctions will be needed. Jehochman ^Talk 02:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that it's a bit early even for that. The situation is unique in that two of CoM's have been blocked and/or brought under extremely close scrutiny almost simoultaneously. How about letting the situation blow over before starting yet another ill-planned and rather drama-ridden RFC/U.

Also as a side note, since BaseballBugs has been sanctioned from discussing CoM, I think it a good idea to mention that he strongly opposes this block, or anyone being topic-banned from AN/I. Soxwon (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately this thread is being used by those with vendettas against me. Moreschi is upset because I objected to him calling a good faith editor's work "lunacy" and then blocking them indefinitely when there was an arbitration under way (which they can no longer participate in directly). I am not a party to that dispute, but blocking those we disagree with is not appropriate. Admins need to use dispute resolution just like the rest of us. Bigtimepeace is a long time liberal POV pusher who has repeatedly come after me and other editors whose opinions he disagrees with. He doesn't like that I insist we abide by our core NPOV policy. Bigtimepeace doesn't agree with it and has bragged about being to the left of Obama politically, and attempted to impose his will with intimidation and bullying tactics.

Thanks to everyone who has stood up for the principle that editors need to be allowed to voice opinions and concerns. I'm certainly not perfect. I will try to limit my comments here for a while. But I think my take on Protonk's protecting a page that he just reverted, indefinite blocks and month-long blocks of editors (who haven't engaged in major policy violation policies) and whose work is attacked as lunacy, is inappropriate. These improper actions are being carried out by a small number of highly disruptive admins, and I think it is important and worth bringing these problems to the community's attention. Please let me know if you have any questions, concerns or suggestions. My talk page is always open to courteous and collegial contributor interested in improving the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering that CoM is correct as a matter of policy, such a ban seems like a really bad idea. I don't think that CoM's comments above exactly help his case but that's a separate issue... JoshuaZ (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Just pointing out, for the record as it were, that ChildofMidnight's description of my actions is utter and complete fantasy. Literally everything he said is incorrect, but I won't respond in any detail (interested parties with questions can feel free to ask at my talk page) because as always C of M prefers to carelessly fling accusations without providing any evidence (Moreschi's note above that C of M has been "lazily firing off blanks" provides only the latest example in a very long line of vague, unsupported, utterly over the top harangues which ChildofMidnight tosses in the direction of most anyone with whom he disagrees—a fairly large WikiProject could be set up composed solely of editors who have been on the receiving end of this stuff). The behavior has gone well past being merely tiresome and is at the core of the problem here, which has been ongoing for many months and apparently shows no sign of stopping. My offer to sign off on a user conduct RFC still stands (though it's been awhile since I've had direct interaction with C of M, which might be an issue), however I'm not going to initiate anything unless others who have tried and failed to resolve the issues with C of M are also willing to do so. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fort Hood Shootings

Resolved

Could I get some extra admins to watchlist Fort Hood shooting? Obviously, dramatic and horrific and appalling, and definitely a high traffic page as facts come out. Some extra eyes would help to head off problems (particularly BLP) before they become severe. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 22:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The page has been semi-protected in response to IP vandalism, but, I agree. *watchlists*--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 22:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) is engaging in edit warring at this article, and also is making edits with no edit summaries. Talk page consensus is against the odd and awkward style of reference formatting he is using, and yet he is seemingly ignoring this and instead reverting, edit warring to remove {{reflist}} style formatting, and reverting the addition of a {{cleanup}} tag for this same issue. I'm taking a break for a while, but really this is not the most appropriate way for an editor to conduct oneself, especially one that also protected the same article they are now editing and engaging in disruption on. Cirt (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's pretty whirlwind over there for the time being as it just happened, fyi. JoeSmack ^Talk 23:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Stricken, he appears to be willing to discuss on the talk page now. :) Cirt (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No it's not it is 2-2 at the moment. And you should AGF rather than post to my talk page accusing me of edit warring. And rather than posting here while I am still writing a reply on the article talk page. The solution I am using is manifest good sense for the article at the moment - the {{Reflist}} I put earlier was repeatedly being broken by the pace of editing on the article. See the article talk page and my talk and Cirt's talk for more if you wish. Rich Farmbrough, 23:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC).

You kept editing and reverting without edit summaries, after I had posted to your talk page multiple times asking you to stop and instead discuss on the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's not blow this out of proportion. I've been there the whole time, and it's a simple misunderstanding. Everyone is discussing now, so let it go. Certainly no need for an ANI thread on either the reverts or the (relatively low) level of vandalism. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 23:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, agreed. :) Cirt (talk) 02:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

GetJar

Resolved

The article GetJar has been recreated when it was deleted by an adiministrator previously - it still contains direct copyrighted information from the bussiness source. Reubzz (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted again by Orangemike. TNXMan 00:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Salted. Mjroots (talk) 06:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Wick vandalism - possible Barney Bunch activity

Resolved

Extended content

Someone has severely vandalized the Characters section of The Drew Carey Show. I think it may be yet another Barney Bunch target, because it was only targeted at Mr. Wick and most of it is very vulgar. However, some of it was very random (something about him going to an Avenged Sevenfold concert) or sexual (his "ability to make teenagera splooge with his accent"). This leads me to think there may have been more than one person at work there. I'm putting the article on my Watch List under my username (I'm not logged in, but I will). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.48.210 (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverted and warned for blatant vandalism.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 03:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Review of a September indef block of User: Redking7

Is it possible to get somekina 'review' of this indef-block? GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the problem to be reviewed? Looks like there was a lot of discussion about it back in September, from the editor's talk page... Tony Fox (arf!) 00:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering that they've been evading their block within the last week (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Redking7/Archive)? Unlikely, I would have thought. Block log is fairly impressive too. Black Kite 00:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I wish the best of luck to you in trying to get this overturned, but I really wouldn't hold my breath. Indeed, the original block was a mistake, as the poll was presented incorrectly (ideally, each side should have prefaced the poll with their own arguments; rather than one side being allowed to set redking up with a strawman argument). However, the moment people resort to sockpuppets, well, that pretty much puts the nail in the coffin more often than not. When a mistake has been made, there are options for remedy; creating another account isn't one of them.

Simply my opinion, mind you. I just don't want you to get your hopes up, or waste too much of your time on something that isn't likely to happen. 139.57.101.207 (talk) 00:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

If I'd know about the September blocking, my 'first' advice would've been don't evade the block (i.e. socking). GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The rationale for Redking7's September block is given over at User talk:Redking7#Status as of November 6. I'm aware of his case since I blocked him once due to 3RR violation over the status of consulates in Taiwan. He kept fighting this issue for an entire year, and declined to follow the steps of WP:DR. EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, if a long length of time has gone by and he still declines to follow the steps of WP:DR as you put it, it would be amazing to see him change his tune now. Unfortunatley, that is how it ususally goes, although one would never know in this crazy world that is Wikipedia...--The Legendary Sky Attacker (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Sarah777 and the British and Irish motorway drama again

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents will be unable to resolve this dispute. Please consider other forms of Wikipedia:dispute resolution, for example WP:AE.

Last month there was considerable drama surrounding the naming of articles about motorways and major roads in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. See for example Talk:N11 road (Ireland), Talk:M1 motorway, Talk:M3 motorway, Talk:M18 motorway, Talk:M50 motorway. There was a lot of heat and drama, and accusations of racism and bias, especially from user:Sarah777. Sarah was subject to an arbitration ruling in 2007 (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine#Sarah777 restricted) that stated "Sarah777 may be banned from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks.".

Today, after several weeks of relative quiet, Sarah posted a new section on talk:N11 road (Ireland) entitled "Anglo bias proven beyond any reasonable doubt" [2]. The aim of this section appears to be to try and get the article moved to the primary topic, despite a requested move discussion closing as "no consensus to move" less than a month ago. The drama first time involved several controversial page moves and requests move discussions.

It might or might not be coincidental that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sarah777 2 was closed earlier today.

Please could a admin who was not involved in the earlier drama take a look and try to prevent another flare up. Thryduulf (talk) 01:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Sarah777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Thryduulf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You're one of the people who brought that RFC against Sarah777, correct? You didn't notify Sarah777 of this thread, did you? And you're in a content disagreement with her, correct? If there is an arbitration ruling in effect, why did't you request enforcement at WP:AE? Your post raises doubts that should be answered before any action is considered. If the editor is on edge because she was the subject of an RFC, I think we should give her a chance to calm down and think about the feedback, rather than adding more pressure. I think this thread is much more likely to create drama than to avoid it. I recommend you drop the matter, and we'll see if she is willing to drop it as well. Jehochman ^Talk 04:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jehochmann. --John (talk) 04:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Sarah777

I went to the N11 to make a change and saw the tag and wondered why it was still there. Then I saw the "move request" box and scanned through, realised (anew) that the case for N11 primacy was at least as clear-cut as the British roads articles whose move was opposed (by many of the same editors). So this move, like the blocking of British road moves, is simply down to the national perspective of the bigger group of editors. The "quality" of the arguments was obviously completely ignored by the closing editor. He saw a sea of "oppose" and said "no consensus". This episode was a stunningly clear demonstration of British bias imposed on Irish articles on Wiki - and of how it works by simple force of numbers. I pointed that out. In the greater debate about WP:NPOV these examples will one day be necessary evidence. I had (and have) no intention of attempting to move the article again. And could someone please tell me how pointing out British bias, where it clearly exists, is an "anti-British remark"? If I said Jack the Ripper was British is that anti-British remark? As for dropping it; I wasn't intending to move any Irish roads articles to primacy, simply because the attempt will fail. There is a coalition of people who support universal dabbing (such as BHG) and there are the editors who insist on primacy for major English roads. The combined effect is that major Irish roads must be dabbed and major English roads cannot be dabbed. I think it was important that this situation was highlighted. Sarah777 (talk) 08:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed this will put new light into this discussion. And the answer to your question, no, saying that Jack the Ripper was British is not an anti-British remark at all. Heck, I don't even think that saying George W. Bush is an American would be considered an Anti-American remark (let's hope not anyway). Pointing out a possible bias issue on Wikipedia is good. There is WP:NPOV to follow after all. You just need to be careful that it doesn't look like you are pushing bias into the other direction, if you know what I mean. Not that I am saying you are doing so.--The Legendary Sky Attacker (talk) 08:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment Major British roads are dabbed. The A1 is a major road linking London and Edinburgh, It is not at A1 road, but at A1 road (Great Britain). This is quite correct as it is found in two countries, England and Scotland. Mjroots (talk) 08:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Found in Edinburgh, Scotland to be exact, as you said. Two countries. Yes...The link that you provided to A1 Road (Great Britain) does in fact say so.--The Legendary Sky Attacker (talk) 09:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Requesting another admin to take ownership of my block

Resolved

 – Graeme Bartlett has done this. Thank you.--chaser (talk) 07:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I blocked Fred1296 (talk · contribs) for 3rr on George Carlin (the diffs should be obvious in the page history) and then started tracing his editing history to see about a sockpuppetry claim made in this AFD (sockpuppetry almost certain). In the process of doing so, I checked Lexis for other sources for Chris Rush, the current version of which Fred1296 wrote. I expected to bring the article to AFD. Instead I found enough reliable sources establishing notability, so I added them to the article. Some of them make the article more negative than as originally written. As such, to avoid the appearance of impropriety, I'd like another admin to take ownership of the 3rr block (just edit block settings and stick your name in the log). Alternatively, if for some reason you don't think a block was warranted, please unblock the editor with my blessing. I'm perhaps being overly cautious, but this was a simple 3rr block, so I don't think it'll take you long to review it either way. Thank you.--chaser (talk) 06:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Kudos for being respectful and considerate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have re blocked, a bit shorter. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hosiery

Resolved

195.138.71.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) admits to being CSOWind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) evading a block for purposes of disruption and promotion. Please do the needful. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. TNXMan 12:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Guy (Help!) 12:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Review of violation of outing policy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here, folks. HalfShadow (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I request that you look at Talk:Charles Karel Bouley (section "Sincere Effort to Avoid further Edit Warring"). The user Joy Diamond has for the third time in a month outed me and posted personal information as a way to garner sympathy for her case. She is, in my opinion, obsessed with one article (Charles Karel Bouley and is, in her latest comments at the above talk page, using personal information about my involvement in Usenet to prejudice administrators against my continued participation in editing the above named article. In the past, she has revealed my full, legal name to others in Wikipedia and this is the second occasion where she has named me as a participant in Usenet. I have informed her each time that she has violated Wikipedia's outing policy. I'd appreciate a sincere effort to look into this and respond appropriately. I have informed the user on her talk page that I am reporting this here. Thanks. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Specific diffs of the alleged outings would be useful here. Tan | 39 16:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This is your username: Kelly A. Siebecke. It seems to me you have no problem with divulging your real name. You appear to accuse User:JoyDiamond of calling you Kelly Siebecke on talk pages. I really can't see how any outing has occurred since no non-public information has been revealed.--Atlan (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

She divulged my full legal name (middle name was included) in addition to revealing that I contribute to Usenet and to what groups I contribute. She has revealed that I used to contribute to a chat room (albeit four years ago) and was banned. This is all personal information not related to my participation in Wikipedia. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Below is the list of violations (of which I have found one more, raising the number to four incidents) -

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Posting off-wiki behavior is not covered by WP:OUTING. Your username is a volunteering of your name. I see no violation of Wikipedia policy. Tan | 39 16:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, I feel compelled to point out that the only reason it 'raised to four incidents' is that she chose to list one of the links twice (the first and the third are the same). I don't think that really counts. 209.90.135.222 (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? My legal name is not my user name. My legal name includes my middle name. Off-wiki activities - whether virtual/internet or not - is covered in the policy under "or other contact information" (especially since that contact in Usenet is through my email address). SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Speaking from the perspective of an oversighter, none of the diffs listed above would qualify in any shape or form for oversighting, as they are information revealed by the editor both on-wiki and in other forums. There is no outing here. Risker (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have NEVER posted my full, legal name in Wikipedia (the 'A' could stand for many other names beginning with 'A' other than what my middle name actually is). Middle names get outsiders access to all kinds of things in this computer age, after all. Revealing my middle name has the potential of subjecting me to harassment off of Wikipedia. I have NEVER discussed or revealed my participation in Usenet in Wikipedia. Revealing that I am a participant in Usenet has the potential of revealing my email address(es) and further harassment off of Wikipedia. I have NEVER mentioned in Wikipedia that I have taken part in a particular chat room and been banned. That was personal information. These things are all *personal* information that should never have been revealed and these things were revealed by the user I have reported for outing - I don't get why you keep insisting otherwise...? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Erm... if you think your middle name is that valuable, you probably shouldn't include the initial. That said, a google of your name (without even bothering with the initial at all) yields wikipedia, and then a page stating your middle name. Since you've also chosen to include where you live on your username, it makes it easier to verify on that other page.

In other words, you've already voluntarily revealed your name, as well as, in essence, your entire middle name. (at least, within the realm of people who know what 'google' is) Also, don't you want to retract your claim that you have four examples? Leaving it up there doesn't look very good. 209.90.135.222 (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The OUTING policy, which you link above, specifically lists contact information as being covered. Hence, "Usenet participant" is not a violation, and being banned on an external chat room is not a violation, just as it wasn't a violation of the policy for Steve Black to mention in my RFA that I had been briefly banned from his wiki for vandalism. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I can accept that. However, that does not change the fact that this user did violate the outing policy by using my full, legal name in the past. Whether or not that is dealt with at this time...? Whatever. But being told repeatedly that I have given my full legal name here when I have not and that there was no violation is ridiculous at best. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how someone else can 'out' you when you've already outed yourself. If you want your real identity to be a secret at Wikipedia, you should probably request a change of username. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but the policy clearly states "Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted one's own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia oneself." I have NEVER posted the info that was revealed about me in Wikipedia. Your personal interpretation of what I should have done or shouldn't have done in regard to my personal information in Wikipedia doesn't matter. The policy is clear and my privacy was violated. Further, it would seem to me that as an administrator, you would be more prudent about observing Wikipedia's policy of assume good faith and no personal attacks (which you completely ignored with your snarky comments above). SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, are you sure you aren't confusing Sarek with me? Because 'snarky' sounds a lot more like me than him. (I don't try to be snarky, mind you. But I definitely hear it a lot) 209.90.135.222 (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't get this at all. You are all supposed to be administrators, but your behavior and the manner in which you have conducted yourselves here along with you dismissal of my valid complaint is beyond childish. Aren't administrators supposed to model appropriate behavior in dealing with issues? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• I believe the point is that you can not reasonably expect to use Kelly A. Siebecke as a username with no one curious about who you are not looking up your name on Google. Also, I'd like to point out that by bringing this issue to ANI, you are in fact ensuring that this outing is known to an even larger audience. Which makes me wonder whether you're after getting the outing corrected, or just out to get the outer punished?--Ramdrake (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I don't care if the person who made the violation is "punished". I care that everyone here has summarily dismissed my complaint as valid (which it is - you can't interpret the rules to suit you as you please based on something you assume I did or didn't do) and that you have all essentially banded together to mock me. At this point, the title "Administrator" in my opinion is a joke. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, my response certainly was not mocking you. However, posts like the preceding one would seem not to be WP:BEANS-compliant... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Also, we are not "all supposed to be administrators" here - the IP is certainly not. But I agree - your complaint is legalistic. Given your user name and sig, the "outing" did not reveal significant information. We don't work by the letters of our rules, but by the spirit. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

What??? You don't work by the established rules but by whatever mood strikes you all? Give a break. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. That is obviously exactly what I wrote. We also have Sigmund Freud's ghost roll dice every 20 minutes to determine our collective mood, which is then distributed to all contributors via telepathy. Furrfu! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

And don't forget about the Death-Ray Unicorns. HalfShadow (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• I think we're done here. HalfShadow (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The two users in question routinely battle over the content of Charles Karel Bouley. Each has accused the other of bias, and each has lodged complaints of harassment against the other. These arguments are likely the reason Black Kite has left the article locked as long as he has.[7]

Per the current complaint, JoyDiamond has questioned Kelly A. Siebecke's POV by commenting on Kelly bashing the subject of the article in Internet discussion groups. Similarly, Joy's POV has been in question due to a personal friendship with the subject of the article.

Joy did, at one point, mention Kelly's middle name on her talk page. Joy later removed it, and apologized to Kelly, who accepted said apology.[8] At the time, no complaint of Outing was filed.

Kelly has similarly revealed personal information about Joy (specifically, Joy's education), commenting on how it can be easily found on the Internet. And yes, Kelly has commented on having been banned from a particular chat room.[9]

I have attempted, in the past, to initiate dispute resolution between these two, to no avail. It concerns me that this is still going on. -FeralDruid (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I do se a potential violation, but it has nothing to do with WP:OUTING. Kelly, you have already given us your full name (except the middle - which could be easily guessed/assumed). Outing cannot ever happen if you have provided the information yourself However, using personal information against you in an argument as an attempt to dissuade you from editing, or to undermine your edits may violate WP:CIVILITY guidelines. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thank you. Finally some helpful and real administrative behavior and assistance. I will take your advice, BWilkins (and shall I assume your first name is Bernard? ;-) SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Potential sockpuppet; advice needed

Hi, I am suspicious that Joeberto (talk · contribs) and 198.160.77.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are one and the same editor; the former edits exclusively on just two articles (Daniel Adam Ortega and Christopher Austin Ortega), while the latter has edited exclusivley on said articles today. Also, they have similar MOs i.e. disrupting the deletion process of those two articles (which are now at AfD) - firstly by removing all traces of PROD tags, then removing AfD tags; both have also removed other editor's comments from the two article's respective talk pages. Do you think I'm on the right lines or just barking up the wrong tree? GiantSnowman 16:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You could file a report at WP:SPI. --Jayron32 16:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I looked there first, but didn't want to make people go to the bother of using CheckUser if I was just being a tad paranoid or whatever! GiantSnowman 16:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I think they pretty much satisfy the duck test. Syrthiss (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Worth an SPI then? GiantSnowman 16:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say no, unless you are concerned that other undiscovered users are them and are disrupting the afd. Both are blocked, and its clear enough that they are the same user in my opinion Syrthiss (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll leave it for now then. If other users/IPs start editing in a similar fashion, I'll take it to SPI. Thanks for your help! Cheers, GiantSnowman 16:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Toddst1 ANI resolve abuse and User:Dbachmann semi-protection abuse

Resolved

 – This is non-issue. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is the discussion of the previous ANI, that I filed exclusively against Dbachmann: discussion

Toddst1 resolved the issue with quote "no abuse found"

WP:SEMI states: Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages which are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy (such as biographies of living persons, neutral point of view). Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users.

I challenge the decision made by Toddst1 and want to know a detailed explanation of his action in light of wikipedia semi-protection policies and the previous mentioned discussion. I still request sufficient action against Dbachmann, who accused me in the discussion of edit warring, lawyering etc. --91.130.188.8 (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Speak with them individually. This is not the place to discuss this.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 13:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

And you were edit warring, and you are wikilawyaring...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 13:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the big deal? If you're right, you'll be able to discuss it on the article talk page, get consensus, and the change will still get made. You ought to do that anyway, before repeatedly reverting to changes when you can see that others disagree with you. I'm an administrator, but I don't know anything about Telegu, so I don't know who's right in this content disagreement. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The big deal is, that I already made my point in a summary and Dbachmann ignored it and semi-protected the article.--91.130.188.8 (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Going after your logic, every admin can protect a site whenever they want (also in case, they were part of it).--91.130.188.8 (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I checked your contribution history, and I can't see any posts from you at Talk:Telugu language at all. If your goal is to get your desired changes made, that's the place to discuss why they are correct and get consensus for them. I don't think that a conversation about semiprotection rules at WP:ANI will help you get your desired changes into Telegu language as effectively. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been accused of a lot of shit, but abusing {{resolved}} tags - that takes the cake. Toddst1 (talk) 13:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Especially from somebody who claims not to be wikilawyering...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 14:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to be abusing a {{resolved}} tag here in just a minute. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Any more of this, and I am not going to agree this is "resolved" unless measures are taken to impress basic wikiquette on 91.130.188.8 (talk · contribs), if necessary using blunt instruments. --dab (𒁳) 14:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It just gets better. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

And forum shopping at RFPP. Syrthiss (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• (E/C) FWIW, the IP address, in classic forum-shopping mode, asked for unprotection at RFPP. I declined it, and suspect that a block may become necessary, since two AN/I threads and a thread at Talk:Jimbo Wales is not enough drama. Horologium (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I think you mean User talk:Jimbo Wales :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • <facepalm> Yes, that was what I meant. (This is what happens when one is attempting to do several things at once; none of them turn out very well.) Horologium (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• I held off commenting on the original thread until DBachman had had a chance to respond. I must now say that I feel that a group of admins seem not to be willing to pay attention to what the OP was complaining about. Yes, plonking a level 3 warning on DB's talk page was not a good idea, nor was the "forum shopping". However, please bear in mind that this is an inexperienced editor (their account has existed for about 3 weeks, with just over 70 edits). Looking at the page in question, I feel that if someone had come to RFPP asking for it to be protected, any of the admins here would have declined, saying that there was insufficient vandalism/edit-warring at this time. Does WP:BITE not apply to editors after their first couple of days? I would count this editor as a newcomer. Just my 0.02 -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Although not an admin, I looked carefully at the contribs and situation. I'm a firm believer in the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. An IP editor was bold - inserting information that clearly did not match the sources being used (yes, he did some other edits too). Those edits were harmful to the overall article. Those edits were reverted (which may have reverted some ok edits too as collateral). Without any discussion, the IP reverted that reversion as vandalism - the BRD cycle broken, and no attempts to discuss. At this point (incorrect material, no discussion, calling valid revert "vandalism"), 1+1+1=3 ... time to protect from an editor who clearly was not participating in the cycle. I would highly doubt that the admin was protecting a favoured version, they were protecting from the insertion of bad data that was promoting a specific language. Now, if this were me, and I semi'd an article that I was involved in, I likely would have brought it up here myself to explain and achieve validation of my action. The admin prevented disruption to an article - unfortunately, it was an article they had some involvement in. For the IP to say that they discussed in an edit summary is BS; we discuss on the article talkpage. The additional disruption actions by the IP (opening a new ANI notice against the closer and running to Jimbo because community consensus was against him) merely emphasizes the non-understanding of policy, process, and makes me think we have a WP:SPA who is trying to promote a certain language (as per the article edits), no matter what. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
    • • WP:BRD is an essay, and not one we can reasonably expect a newbie to have even heard of. WP:SPA from a handful of edits, and then a complaint (with various followups due to poor handling of it) is a ludicrous leap. Rd232 ^talk 12:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • I acknowledge that it's an essay. However, in the IP's first ANI entry, one of my first responses was to read the BRD essay, and re-gauge his anger, and it would have certainly alleviated much of the additional drama that has occurred. They appear to have steadfastly refused to so, although I will AGF. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • Thanks for your response, Bwilkins. I agree that the protection was to prevent 'bad data' being entered into the article rather than any other motive, and I understand what you are saying - but I still feel that if this had gone to RFPP, the request for protection would have been declined - and I still feel that a newcomer has been harshly treated. I personally wouldn't have semi'd the page (yes, I know I'm not an admin, but I'm talking theoretically!) - I would have given the IP editor a 3RR warning - if they reverted again, then the IP could be blocked for a day (or however long), rather than semi-protecting the page. Just my take on the situation. YMMV -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• I notice that Bwilkins said the IP made mistakes and promoted bad data, while the admin was trying to prevent bad data. I looked at the edit as well and see the exact opposite. The edit changed the article to say that Telegu is the third-most spoken language in India rather than the second. The cited source which the IP added, an Indian census page, says that Hindi is the most spoken (257 million), Bengali has 83 million, and Telegu has 74 million speakers. So on that point the IP appears to be correct unless I'm missing something? On the other factual point is ambiguous because no sources are provided. II | (t - c) 02:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• • After a futile discussion on dbachmann's user talk page I have unilaterally unprotected the page.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

May need mass rollback.

An ip user, 68.193.133.203 has been making over an edit a minute, as can be seen here, adding X danced a Y with Z on Dancing with the Stars to many song pages. I took a random sampling and checked, and could find no sources for any of it. They appear good faith, but no sources, and not being able to find a single source for a random half-dozen sample has me worried. IRC admins directed me here. FELYZA ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 23:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

What do ya'll think, it's rather fast. [10]. JoeSmack ^Talk 23:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like they're adding references to Dancing with the Stars to every song that was used on that show. Maybe unnecessary, but not vandalism. Evil saltine (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Did a quick refactor of this, JoeSmack is one of the IRC ops that told me come here, while I was typing, their conflicting edit made me retype. Appended it to what should have been the original notice. FELYZA ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 23:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Rolled back regardless. The rate is disconcerting, among other things. Protonk (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought there was an abuse filter to throttle IP edits...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 23:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe block him? He seems bot-like, he's not replying to talk pages. JoeSmack ^Talk 23:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare went ahead and rolled them all back. Tim1357 (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That is a rather interesting way to show outdents/indents isn't it. This place never runs dry on the jaw-droppers.--The Legendary Sky Attacker (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it should be fixed soon, since the deletion discussion is pretty much SNOWing to keep... Until the discussion has closed, I've fixed the problem by wrapping the TFD template with noinclude tags on the template itself. Until It Sleeps ^alternate 18:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

User Softvision on talk pages

(section retrieved from most recent archive - added comment)

User Softvision (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is abusing talk pages with unsourced original research of the the-article-and-relativity-is-wrong type. He has been warned about this repeatedly by myself and by others ( [11], [12], [13] ). He then goes away, and after a while, returns. Today, after someone else removed his talk page sections, I left some 3rd and 4th level warnings on his talk page, which he promptly removed, toghether with similar warnings by others. A bit later I got this 10-edits string on my talk page. Assuming good faith, I have no other option than to assume wp:NOCLUE. Can someone effectively take some kind of administrative action? DVdm (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I asked him to back off on the original research and flooding your talk page. Not sure what good it will do, but... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks already, but I just got another one. This seems to be a copy of his reply on his talk page. You got another copy on yours, so it seems. DVdm (talk) 11:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I was a bit more clear about the likelihood of blocking this time, and reminded him that we both told him to stay off your page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

As if nothing happened, Softvision continues with more of the same. DVdm (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what he's saying there; I don't think English is his native language. Maybe we should give the folks on WP:FTN a crack at it? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I just posted there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. As Softvision seems to mistrust me, I will refrain from commenting there. DVdm (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not suitable for me to play any role in this way. Softvision (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics might be better for similar future incidents, but those are highly watched pages and enough editors seem to be aware of the problem for now. The recent Speed of light arbitration included a WP:NOTFORUM provision but no special enforcement. Would you like to initiate a community ban discussion, or wait a few days to see if the problem of posting unverified fringe material to basic physics articles will sink in? - 2/0 (cont.) 20:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

2over0, I don't know whether you are addressing me, or Softvision, or SarekOfVulcan, but I don't think there's much to discuss anywhere. Anything beyond a simple block is (i.m.o.) going to be a waste of time. DVdm (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"Concensus" at Talk:Argleton

Yesterday an editor commented on the talk page that it was inappropriate to categorise the article in Category:Geography of West Lancashire; within two minutes, RaseaC agreed and the category was promptly removed, which is fine. When I saw the edits later in the day I disagreed and restored the category, giving my reason on the talk page, but RaseaC reverted me citing the earlier discussion (such as it was). As the removal was disputed (by me) and there was no clear concensus of opinion, I felt justified in reverting to the status quo in the hope that this would lead to further discussion. RaseaC responded with comments such as "until [someone else agrees with you] then we'll go ahead with what the majority want", and despite stating on my talk page that "I'm not going... to get into a revert war with you here" has nevertheless removed the category again.

I'm not here about the category – that's something I can ultimately take or leave. What does concern me is RaseaC's attitude towards concensus building, the notion that concensus can be forged by two editiors within the space of two minutes, that differing opinions don't matter, comments like "As far as I'm concerned a consensus is reached when a majority of editors reach an agreement" and "It's not my fault if the policy is flawed", and the aggressive manner in which the presumed concensus has been enforced – none of this is consistant with my understanding of Wikipedia's concensus policy. I've made my arguments on the article talk page but RaseaC doesn't seem particuarly interested in any constructive discussion. I'm really not sure how best to proceed here. Small-town hero (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be an inappropriate forum for a discussion about which you apparently have no interest. If there is a problem with my understanding of a particular policy then it would probably be better to hold such a discussion on my talk page. Unless you want administrator intervention against my edits on WP I see no reason for this discussion to be conducted on this noticeboard and therfore have no interest in taking part in this particular discussion. RaseaC (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

So what now?--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 22:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

WebHamster Threats?

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

Someone should probably check up on whatever this is about. I have no idea, nor do I wish to be involved with it. Danger, will robinson... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This is outright blackmail. Oversight nuke the diffs, talk page block WebHamster if necessary. This is some serious shit. A little insignificant ^{Bloated on candy} 18:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as how WebHamster is indefinitely blocked (for a long track record of... let's just say incivility), and claims to have left the project anywyas, I would humbly suggest that "it's necessary" (to fully protect the talk page) 209.90.135.222 (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Locking his talk page won't change anything as WebHamster said he'd use means other than Wikipedia (that's my interpretation anyway, although he didn't explicitly say that). I don't agree with what WebHamster's suggesting, but considering the campaign of harassment by Yiwentang with some disgusting accusations that had to be oversighted it's not hard to see how he feels he's been pushed to this. Nev1 (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Blackmail of whom? Parrot of Doom 18:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk page access blocked, WP is not his or anyone else's battleground, although any admin is free to reverse if they feel I was in error. Furthermore, there appears to be nothing we can do on this side to deal with this ongoing harassment so alluded to, unless someone has an idea that can be solved by my array of buttons or a stern message?--Tznkai (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yiwentang has been blocked and warned in many guises many times. Unfortunately, another warning for the latest sock wouldn't have any effect. The best policy is WP:RBI whenever one pops up. Nev1 (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree with Tznkai's decision. This matter has nothing to do with improving Wikipedia. -- œ^™ 19:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Eternally remove WebHamster from Wikipedia. He has done good things here, but outing threats (even if it were against another potential outer) is just not acceptable. Not to mention his long, dark history of incivility warnings, blocks and the rest...WebHamster was a good contributor but is no longer an ingredient in Wikipedia's recipe book.--The Legendary Sky Attacker (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Bad-faith RfA, likely by vandal's sock

Resolved

 – All blocked. Brandon (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Loobasooba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has a single edit, for has nominated for adminship JoSePh3993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a vandal who has 25. MISSKITT99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who also has precisely one edit, has helpfully decided to answer the Questions for the candidate. Evidently the user can't keep straight who s/he's logged-in as. I think I smell LTA, but can't identify the culprit. The number 99 evidently holds some significance for this editor. --Rrburke^(talk) 19:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I knew Wayne Gretzky was no longer coaching the Phoenix Coyotes, but who knew that he'd stoop to vandalism :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, if you block him, Marty McSorley will not be happy. --Smashville^talk 20:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia

Resolved

Is a month old today. Will some uninvolved admin make the close? ThemFromSpace 20:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Closed. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)