Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Very Important Business

Click this button.

Reference this BLP.

Click this button.

Reference this BLP.

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

• • You need to make those buttons a little larger, as my eyesight ain't what it used to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Not really an incident, though, is it? ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 15:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate the buttons, "um"? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• One down. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This button leads not to specific articles, but to random articles tagged unreferenced BLP, which is not a bad idea. Of the first two I checked, one had been referenced since Feb 20, 2009, with links to published reviews,and should never have been marked unreferenced. (Whether the reviews offer sufficient extensive and reliable coverage to support notability might be another matter); The second can be referenced easily from GNews (though whether they actually support sufficient notability is another matter also)--perhaps the note was placed here to indicate the excessiveness of the fuss over these articles. DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to add a "Source a BLP" link to the sidebar, perhaps just under "Random article"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

BMK, I like that idea. And I'm pleased to say that Halid Muslimović is also removed from that category. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Hmm. It's also defaulting me back to the nonsecure interface to do this, which results in my other username being used... Jclemens (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody shrink those, please? That's kind of obnoxiously large. HalfShadow 20:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It could be a great motivational tool: let's have the size of the buttons directionally proportional to the number of tagged unreferenced BLPs ;) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

=D Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 21:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• This is exactly the sort of being on the wrong page and two steps behind that I'm talking about. If you had been reading the noticeboard page where the discussion is actually happening, you would have noticed the existence of Template:Big Red Button, substituted above but transcluded on the proper discussion page, which was created a month ago. Uncle G (talk) 09:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I am forced to Facepalm on behalf of us all. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

LemonMonday again

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

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

Both of these editors have worked the British Isles naming dispute area. LemonMonday has been a single purpose account whose main space edits from 2008 - Winter 2010 were made up of reverts of User:HighKing at articles they (LM) have never edited before. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] He was also recently blocked for violating WP:BATTLE twice (October 30th and October 8th by Jehochman)[8]. Jehochman was convinced to unblock following this promise by LemonMonday. Subsequently LemonMonday raised two malformed article RFCs [9][10] - he was advised, by me, on how to fix the RFC at WP:BISE[11] but do date he has not. These RFCs discussed the subject of British Isles rather than how to improve the articles. The RFC on Talk:British Isles borders on falling under WP:NOT as it asks a question beyond the remit of Wikipedia to consider at all.

The above issues with this account fall under disruptive editing generally, but more specifically, WP:POINT, WP:HOUND and WP:BATTLE. LemonMonday was warned only a week ago that single purpose accounts are “expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda” (per the ArbCom ruling at the Race and Intelligence RfAr[12]). This recent spurt of reverts is alarming because LemonMonday has never edited either of these articles before. LemonMonday is now following another editor around reverting them.[13][14][15][16][17][18] LemonMonday has been the subject of a series of ANI threads in 2010[19][20][21], there are also issues with this account going all the way back to 2008[22]. Each one coming to the conclusion that LemonMonday was making pointy edits incompatible with Wikipedia.

Proposed remedy

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

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

--Cailil ^talk 15:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

discussion part one

Though I'm no longer involved with BISE, I'd recommend waiting until the LM account's 72hr block expires, before continuing further on disciplinary action. It was annoying enough having the LB account's continous protests over it's civility sanctions being passed during its own block. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your point GD but if the community wants to look at a full site ban I'll unblock LM on the condition that he only posts here. If the community wants to take the other road it's unnecessary. This isn't a court proceeding it's moderation of an internet project - our contrib history speaks for us--Cailil ^talk 21:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Number 3 - another little two reverts each edit war between User:HighKing and user:TharkunColl on British Isles versus British Islands (!?!) then one revert from Lemon Monday. Nobody having edited it before.

Number 4 same again. Looks like a series of little articles on fauna, translated from nl.

Number 5 same again.

Number 6 is a little different. It dates to October 2008. However, again it is an edit war between TharkunColl and HighKing started by this peculiar edit by HighKing. Lemon Monday comes in for the last edit.

Number 7 is his contribs.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I take your point Fainites. HK's edits then, 2008, were extremely problematic but HK's edit pattern changed. That does not excuse LM's wikihounding then, nor does it now of Fmph. LM should not be involving himself in revert warring at all anywhere - he fact that he has chosen to follow users he is in disagreement with elsewhere just makes that worse. He has been doing this since '08 to present.
If there is a problem LM should report it - as he has been invited to do for months. Rather than do so he has breached 3RR and the British Isles topic probation. And he has done so after blocks, warnings and community input (ANi threads etc). Therefore he knows he should be doing this and is choosing to anyway.
On the matter of the usage of WP:BISE (which is/was part of the problem) that is being reformed to come in line with site standards and if I find anyone from either side editing in a manner incompatible with WP:5 they'll be brought here. W.hat makes this especially serious from my perspective is that LM's edits have the appearence of hounding a user he's in disagreement with in an Ireland topic area to another topic area - in other words the BI dispute is being spilt over onto unrelated pages.
I included teh contribs deliberately so people can have quick access to LM's main space edits to see how many are and are not reverts--Cailil ^talk 22:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not waving a flag for LemonMonday! It just seems to me that if HighKing changes British Isles where he can and then revert wars to keep it that way, I don't see why the last reverter in line is the only one criticised when none of them have edited any of these articles other than to edit war over British Isles. I don't see how HK's editing pattern has changed that much except that he very carefully keeps under 3 reverts. It also seems to me that if an editor spends his time hunting down and removing a legitimate term he has taken a particular dislike to then it seems odd to complain if other editors hunt down his changes and revert them. Technically the latter could be called hounding or stalking - but then what is HKs activity called? (By the way "British Islands" is not a term I have ever heard in all my puff). Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the later set of diffs - these aren't BISE punch ups. The argument is over adding northern european climate as the norm. Fmph and LemonMonday each reported each other for 3RR/edit-warring.lemonMonday reported and Fmph for 3RR/edit-warring and another editor reported lemonMonday. LemonMonday was 3RR and got 72 hours. Fmph wasn't. I agree they are BISE spin-offs though. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Fmph wasn't what? And please strike your comment that I reported LM. I didn't. Fmph (talk) 09:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't 3RR. And sorry - it wasn't you that reported LemonMonday.Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Fmph (talk) 09:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

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

I see this is turning into the usual. Let's put up a HK smokescreen and TOTALLY forget the issue at hand. Bjmullan (talk) 10:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

That is a somewhat bad faith way of looking at it Bjmullan. I have not been "involved" in BISE until I looked into it quite recently simply because of it's frequent appearance here and I find a lot of it frankly absurd. I call it like I see it. If you have any detailed challenge to what I say the diffs show - by all means expound it here. I am not - as I said - waving a flag for LemonMonday. I am indicating that examination of the diffs so far appears to indicate that all 3 may well not be abiding by either the spirit or letter of the probation. Obviously diffs will need to be examined further.Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No. It's not. Why exactly am I being dragged into this for edits since 2008 that are nearly 3 years old? Before BISE was started? Before BISE sanctions were even talked about and created? Now *that's* bad faith. --HighKing (talk) 10:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually the first diff is 2010 and most of the others are late 2009. The probation may be more recent but the same arguments and problems have been going for years. I raised this point because the diffs regarding LemonMonday were provided although I take your point that TharkinColl was not involved in 2010. Fainites ^barleyscribs 11:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

And here's the nub of the problem, and the nub of *your* biased view. Since 2008, my behaviour has changed. I learned, I discussed, I am civil. I work with the community. I follow policy. What is being highlighted here is LemonMonday's behaviour and failure to meaningfully contribute, and *your* failure to objectively look at his behaviour and instead try to turn this into (yet another) "Close Down BISE" or "HighKing is evil" rant. Your own opinion on the merits or otherwise of BISE (which are pretty well known) should not be confused with objectively examining Cailil's opening statement and LM's behaviour. --HighKing (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

And is anyone going to tell the editors in question that their motives and behaviour is being questioned at ANI? Fmph (talk) 11:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

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

OK. Perhaps I haven't expressed myself clearly. My concern was that the list of edits you raised showed BISE behaviour from a number of editors rather than a pattern of LemonMonday hounding one editor, mostly in late 2009 and one in 2010. It seems to me that if there is a campaign to remove the use of a particular phrase from wikipedia, there will inevitably be a counter campaign in the other direction with most if not all of those involved following each other's edits. The recent diff in 2010 involved several BISE editors. I take my hat off to you for trying to police this situation and keep it within bounds. I have not really commented substantially on the situation with Fmph except to say LM 3RRd and Fmph didn't. I agree this thread should get back on topic. Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No probs Fainites. I just want to deal with what's in front of me first. I do sincerly think that the problem you mention (the firt mover in these revert wars) should be resolved by BISE's review. I see a problem with any campaign to remove any term anywhere on WP and I hope and trust that the preponderance of good editors (those who put WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR firt) at BISE will keep things in order if editing atmosheres can be normalized--Cailil ^talk 20:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

It takes two or three to tango. At the very least, to appear fair, the ban/sanction should be two way. This issue has been raised before by others [23] and myself recently on his talk page. Fmph is a British Isles renaming dispute regular, not estranged from and edit wars in this area. SarekOfVulcan has also involved himself in editing warring in this area. LemonMonday just fell for a simple "gotcha". I have not looked closely at the timestamps but if he is editing from the UK, he may well have done so overnight and thought himself to be clear of any possible 3RR. He did the responsible thing but reporting an edit-war first. [{WP:AGF]]

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

Reading what Fainites writes about the validity of all the references, once we remove their apparently impressive barrage and all the policy talk, do we really have anything of substance here? Are there really any terrible abuses going on? No, not at all. HighKing is again dragged back into the discussion as progenitor of the problems. Bjmullan comes in again to support on one side. [24] Snowded will soon appear to propose a case by case approach. It is the same old British Isles renaming dispute, business as usual.

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

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

I would advise reading this and this also to get a flavour of these absurd disputes - absurd on all sides. Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps just call the place Lizland (l'island) and be done with it?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Wot, Belgium? Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I'd call Belgium other names.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course, LB fails to mention anything about LM following me first to Climate of Ireland, and later to Belgium, articles he had never previously edited. Neither does he explain why any edit to the Belgium article has anything to do with the British Isles (Hint: the correct answer is that it doesn't so it's pretty safe to assume that LMs actions were against me, and not against what I was editing). And the bad faith allegations and emotive language against Cailil (talk · contribs) "taking sniper shots at individual editors in order to take them out of the game" is pretty typical of his/her ad hominem attack style. Unreal! Fmph (talk) 13:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Fmph ignore this please I have asked LB to strike his ad hominem remarks--Cailil ^talk 13:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I see we have the usual name calling. The fact is that over the last year High King has played by the rules and has proposed changes on the task force page and accepted community decisions. I sometimes think it might be a good idea for the community to appoint someone to go through the edit histories of the main players and establish some facts so that we could avoid these smoke screens in the future. In contrast to HighKing Lemon and Levin have just been nay sayers, arguing for the insertion of BI whenever they can and objecting to its removal with few if any exceptions. They are both SPAs. And yes, I will continue to say that we have to resolve this issue on a case by case basis using references. The behaviour of both SPAs is not helpful to that, but LemonMonday is constantly breaking WP:AGF and edit wars at the drop of a hat. A topic ban at least I think. --Snowded ^TALK 20:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sanction discussion

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

• topic ban and interaction ban for 3 months, and see if the editor can do better after a break from the topic. This is a measure I think we should use more frequently, before things come to an indefinite topic ban or site ban. (Part of me is tempted to topic ban/interaction ban the entire BISE crowd for 3 months - Wikipedia won't collapse in their absence, and they might return to the topic later on a bit wiser.) Rd232 ^talk 17:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support for block/ban applied to entire BISE crowd. If it takes two to tango, HighKing's British Isle renaming dispute WP:BISE is a Buenos Aires ballroom (and Buenos Aires is neither in the British Isles nor Britain and Ireland, although they have just opened up a Grill in Dublin [25] which I suppose makes Ireland the largest geographic area ... zzzz).

If there is need for any sanctioning or banning, and this case look very petty and one sided, it should involve both parties equally. --LevenBoy (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Which 'both' parties? The reason that it's 'one-sided' (in your narrow POV), is that only one side is behaving badly. The preferred response would be for 'both' sides to behave properly and then the balance would be restored. So you chivy up 'your' lot to behave properly and I'll talk to 'my' lot. This response smacks of desperation as it looks like you may lose your tag team partner, so your repsonse is to ban everyone on the other side of the argument, who have been behaving themselves. Fmph (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You and LemonMonday. The dispute in itself if not worth a fig but using it as an excuse to take out a player in the British Isle renaming dispute is. --LevenBoy (talk) 09:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

And what have I done wrong to warrant being banned? Don't you get it? LM broke the rules. I didn't. That's why the proposal is to topic-ban LM. Good grief. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is right! Fmph (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

LevenBOy you have had FULL and fair warning to abide by your editing restriction and stop using wikipedia as a battleground either strike your commentry calling my actions unethical/involved, and your opiniosn about other users or you will be blocked for breaching that restriction (full warning given here)--Cailil ^talk 13:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• topic ban and interaction ban for 3 months and to be applied just as stringently (and perhaps more swiftly) to other editors who cannot abide by community policies. Enough is enough, it's time to get tough. --HighKing (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

resolution?

• Given that there seems to be a consensus here for a topic ban with interaction ban and that the same consensus exists for the same action from a previous ANi thread only a water of days ago[26] - I will impose this sanction within 24 hours. It should also be noted that this ban is within the remit of topic's probation and is a discretionary sanction. I am happy to review it after 3 months and 6 months. If I am unavailable or unwilling to do so at those times I am open for the community to do so here or at another appropriate forum or for the ArbCom to do so.
  However, I'm leaving a window open here in case LemonMonday wants to say anything constructive, and indeed in case LevenBoy wishes to retract the remarks he has been directed to redact as violations of his civility parole.
  If nothing happens within the next 24 hours both accounts will be notified of the actions pertaining to their accounts, LemonMonday topic banned from all British Isles naming topics widely construed (see TB02 listed at WP:GS/BI - that is a ban from both editing and discussing in any way whatever) and is banned from interacting with users from that area of dispute. Furthermore if LevenBoy does not remove his disruptive remarks in breach of behavioural restriction as notified, he will be blocked for violating his civility parole.
  Any outside opinions on this are vey welcome--Cailil ^talk 19:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I would have no problem with that. Mo ainm~Talk 19:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Fully support your handling of this difficult situation and also your proposed actions. Bjmullan (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure three editors - one of them heavily involved - one tempted to ban the whole BISE crowd, for, with one other heavily involved against counts as consensus for a topic ban. The complete lack of outside opinion on this may be a clue here. One could speculate forever as to why the usual bunch of commentators here do not comment either way but the fact is they don't. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That's why I entitled this "resolution?". And just so you know as listed above every thread about LM comes to the same point if he continues disrupting the project its time to topic ban. That was the resolution in November and August.
I am however trying to open this to floor for discussion. I'm notaware that Rd232 is involved in this and I was including the consensus from the last discussion as well.
It should be noted though I've brought this here to discuss either a full site ban or a topic ban. There was no support for the site ban. The topic ban is within the remit of the probation and can be administered if an uninvolved sysop deems it appropriate - hence my mention of the sanction as discretionary. I am happy to leave this open for more input and if none is forth coming I'll ask a few uninolved sysops to review before acting. Personally the first thing I'd like to see is a constructive response from LM and LB, that if it came would help them both--Cailil ^talk 01:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Use of inappropriate language by User:Ibn kathir

Moved from WP:AN § Use of inappropriate language by User:Ibn.Kathir

 – GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 17:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Looks like a content dispute, from your explanation. If you think there's sockpuppetry involved, you should file an WP:SPI report. Also, User:Ibn.Kathir doesn't appear to be registered; did you misspell the username? GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 17:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Believe it is Ibn_kathir.--Korruski^Talk 17:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Informed the user and corrected the username in the thread heading. GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 17:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"Looks like a content dispute" ? This matter was filed because of bad user conduct, how is;

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

simply a content dispute? Tarc (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I invite you to quote the entire sentence; I made it clear I hadn't been able to locate the discussion and that from the quotes the user provided it appeared to be a content dispute. GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 17:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Certainly not a content dispute - civility with perhaps a racism undertone starting. Nothing blockable yet from what I see - of course, this is an issue that should have been at WP:WQA first ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, correct name is User:Ibn kathir. And yes it is regarding content dispute but it seems s/he agrees to nothing and keep using allegations and accusations towards users, communities, creeds, etc. I didn't requested for blocking anyone I just reported the happening and my concerns. The attitude of user is blocking activity on Aisha & it seems on other articles also. We have tried to engage the user but s/he refuse to be constructive contributor. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 17:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right that it's not just a content dispute. I've warned them about crossing the line into abuse, hopefully they will take heed. Fences&Windows 23:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The SPI report was filed on 30 November at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ahmed Ghazi by Faizhaider. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 01:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Calling a group of people idiots rather than a specific individual only magnifies the problem. If you are calling more than one person an idiot, its a personal attack against more than one person. It certainly doesn't excuse the behavior. --Jayron32 07:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The way to handle this, Ibn, is don't comment on other editors, comment only on content and how to echo sources in the text. Keep in mind, some sources might not agree with other sources and more than one outlook on a topic can be cited, following WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Some do, sometimes and in some places, see Shia as ethnically linked. Either way, putting down a whole swath of believers in a given strain of faith can be every bit as harmful as a racial slur. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I never intend to silence any opposition, in contrary I (& others) tried to include user IK into the discussion and tried to address IK's views and comments even if they were opposite to mine (this can be checked by referring to the conversation on Talk:Aisha) but IK insisted on some points which are even contrary to WP standards (infact we were ready to accept that also and we asked for list of references IK will agree but to no avail). I only reported incident to ANI when it became unbearable for me (& to other users) so that corrective measures may be taken.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 08:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Neither making a religious slur, nor answering with another slur, is on here. It only makes things worse (as seems to have happened). Gwen Gale (talk) 08:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add User:Ibn kathir insulted me as well in Abu Bakr and Islam and Aisha talk pages, and he called my contributions idiotic and garbages [27].--Aliwiki (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

User IK was the first person on Talk:Aisha to use words like idiotic and garbages and down play opinions of others by labeling them fringe/minority belief/opinion and addressing users based on their faith (religion/creed), geography, etc. e.g. Shia, Ahmadiya, Western, etc. User IK opinioned that no reference on the article Aisha is acceptable except Sunni sources that to interpreted by Sunni scholars and used by Sunni users i.e. practically user IK wants to block away all users from article who contradict opinion of User IK based on their faith (religion/creed), geography, etc. User IK is sort of running Non-cooperation movement added with insults and accusations which target whole communities save individuals.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 17:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

a western person cant be anti western, the best muslims i have met in terms of hospitality and respect are the shia of iraq so im not anti shia, labeling something as inherently shia [such as thier hatred among other thing for the prophets wife's and companions which is exclusively their belief hence the label] is not anti a community its just stating a fact, and none of what you have said is relevant on this admin board so i dont know what else you are trying to prove. I will concede that the incident played out different in my mind but the time stamps say something else, but as i clearly stated earlier i was reacting to the other users quotes and accusations in which he essentially said Aisha the prophets wife hated her husband and lied about him and then their is this blatant lie in which he claimed the prophet called his own wife "The spearhead of disbelief and the horn of Satan” i know the full context of the hadith and its explanation by experts in exegesis and it has nothing to do with Aisha, but again this has nothing to do with the admin board.

Ibn kathir (talk) 07:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to add prior to the quotes i had advised the other editor that primary research would not be accepted and pointed him to the relevant wiki policy of primary research after which he thanked me for the advise and said i had made matters easier for him and not long after he quotes what i stated and said the above, i thought it was a deliberate attack against her.

Ibn kathir (talk) 07:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

User Ibn Kathir, what was written in Aisha page, were from prominent western secondary sources. That western orientalists have reported Aisha's life the way you don't like is not problem of Shia, it's your problem, and you can not solve this problem by insulting Shia users.--Aliwiki (talk) 12:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

i dont know what you are talking about, random comments about things i haven't spoken about wont increase the likely hood of me being banned.

Ibn kathir (talk) 07:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

User talk:KeepInternetSafe&Clean

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

While the user definitely got off to an unpleasant start, there are a few signs for hope that xhe'll improve. After initially editing in the same way as User:193.226.140.133 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), xhe's registered an account. After being asked, xhe's started signing posts. The sniping seems to have slowed down, if not stopped. I would urge that we show a little patience with a novice editor. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure that you've identified folk correctly? Isn't KeepInternetSafe&Clean the user who was 69.114.240.113? Surely 193.226.140.133 is the Softpedia CoI editor on the other side of the dispute? - David Biddulph (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Argh, my head hurts! Yes, David's got it right. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Thanks. KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia cerberus, is this link a verifiable one, according to your NPOV policy? Based on that, I want to add to softpedia webpage that they use deceptive layout and ads making difficult for user to find the download link. CAN I DO THAT OR YOU WILL ACCUSE ME AGAIN OF VANDALIZING? http://website-in-a-weekend.net/making-money/advertising-design/

"Integration, not deception

Notice how hard it can be hard to find the real download link on download pages hosted on some download websites with white backgrounds like Softpedia which host freeware, shareware, and trialware? Tricky, right? KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Users feeling tricked and might not return to your site. And that’s bad for future earnings from ad clicks."

• That is a page of business advice wich does not tell very much about Softpedia. I don't think a page of business advice is a good reference for an encyclopedia. NotARealWord (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

So you accept references only from CNN, New York Times and what else? You are so biased. This site of professionals says that Softpedia is tricky for users, what I keep saying for a week, and you still don't accept it?!? KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The Softpedia mention is only a small comment. A review about Softpedia itself works much better for it's article. NotARealWord (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the user should be blocked for a short time for failing to understand what Reliable Sources mean and the fact he is personally attacking other editors per WP:NPA. Momo san ^Talk 18:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey Momo, whom and how did I attack personally? You are wrongly accusing me again. I see a pattern here from Wikipedia editors. Saying that you are "useless" is a matter of opinion, it is a free country, nothing offending, to the majority of users/visitors of this site, what you guys are doing, hiding the truth=you are of no use. Cerberus?!? Nothing offending,somebody should be proud of such a nickname, meaning u r doing a good job for your master. Bottom line Wikipedia and the editors censuring my saying against softpedia, you are so pitiful, a totally embarassment. KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC).

QED. David Biddulph (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back

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

For saying what? "I hate admins?". Ceoil (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any recent diffs to support problems recently? Wikipedia review notwithstanding, do you have any on-wiki evidence of recent disruption? Perusing his recent contributions, I do find some positive content work, including some extensive work on expanding and cleaning up at least one or two articles. While content work cannot override bad behavior, his edits don't appear to have consisted of, "All... trolling" as you claim. I am well aware of this users past, blocked identities, but given that he seems to have turned over a new leaf, and is not currently causing a problem, on what specific, diff-supported grounds do you wish to see him blocked? --Jayron32 21:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

[28], [29], [30], [31] to name a few. I just think that his trolling has far outweighed any positive contributions he has made. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This ANI section is more disruptive than anything linked above. Please contribute to the encyclopedia rather than attempting to ban a good editor.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Why does everyone keep trying to defend this troll? "Good" editors don't have their main accounts indef blocked four times now. His unblock requests even show that he is just a troll (see his talk page). Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Please side with love rather than hate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"The love you take is equal to the love you make." Such as the love shown for both the editors and for the English language, in comments like "u r dumb." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it's time to block. Per my comments here - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

That's four sketchy edits in the past month. I agree that the 4 edits you provided are bad, and should ideally never happen, but I do not think that they rise to the level of instantly blockable. --Jayron32 21:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Fine with an indef block. --John (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You people are being unnecessarily ruthless and thin-skinned. Users should not be blocked for something they wrote on another website with the exceptions of canvassing and child pornography.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

[32], [33], [34]... all within the past month. I don't read the crap he writes on WR, I am basing this purely on his disruptive editing here and with his other trolling account. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

He said "u r dumb" as recently as today.[35] Having escaped 4 indef's, he probably figures he's teflon. Maybe time to apply the brillo pad. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Teflon is cheap and artificial; I'm more like carefully seasoned cast iron, rich with years' build-up of carbonized grease and free of metallic flavor.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Slippery, either way. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Then why start off with a link to WR? That appears to be the motivation for this thread. These wiki-links (mostly from early November) appear to be attempts at humor. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"Hey, Saturn, U R dumb!" That was pretty funny, yes? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I LOLed.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I will now file a grievance at WP:EQ.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm shaking in my jackboots. :) Or is it Fat Man who'll be your target? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The things that really made me start this thread were (1) his post on WR right after BErD was indef blocked, and (2) the diff provided by Bugs to TCNSV's talk page, which is on my watchlist. I searched through WR for the original post (I assumed no one else made the connection between the two accounts yet, for which I was mistaken), but found this one instead. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

After Fat Man's sock was blocked for giving wikipedians the BErD, it's odd that his original account was allowed to continue to operate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Never mind what I said earlier, based on his last comments here today, he shows no remorse or signs of intending to take the project seriously. I would support an indefinitate block here. Significant is his prior history. I would never think of blocking a user if this was the sum total of problems. But given his extensive history of general trolling, I see no evidence he intends to stop. --Jayron32 21:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I, er, refactored my comments, like when i said that guy was dumb.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, yeh,[36] after the threat of indef started to look realistic, and meanwhile invoking the ID of your indef'd sock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Every comment here, including this one, is troll feeding. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM P-:--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yup. See ya. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Why, again, are we not blocking him until he starts acting like an adult human being again? --Conti|✉ 22:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, clearly hasn't changed and is evading block. Someone just do it. Netalarm^talk 22:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

NOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!! i will submit to mentorship and adoption and arbcom sanctions and all manner of indignities. but pls don't block me because i have a lot of constructive edit todo before i die. :-(--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I can only hope this means you're going to die soon... HalfShadow 22:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Possibly at the end of something resembling cable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

HE MADE DEATH THREATS TO ME!--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. Looks like a hope for divine intervention of some kind. That's not a death threat. Unless he has God's private phone number on speed-dial. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Times like this I wish the computer had a punch button. Isn't there a cartoon you could be watching, Fat? HalfShadow 22:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC) HalfShadow 22:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Judging by that block log, the blocked sock and the several nonsensical comments above, the user is either on a long-term trolling campaign or simply does not have the temperament required for useful contribution in a collegial, collaborative, adult environment. I agree with Jayron32 and Eagles247 and support an indefinite block.  Sandstein  22:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

i hope you do not become an arbcom sandstein becos you are wrong in this case. also a lot of my block log are outright MISTAKES (do your research) but a couple of them were legitamate and things like this.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Re-open discussion, The Fat Man indef

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

Is that another boomerang coming this way? Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 22:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's troubling that Eagles247 puts up old diffs, of an already discussed unblock, then alleges no productive edits (which TFM's contribs clearly shows is untrue), jumps into an already settled matter to allege disruption, and then everyone else piles on like sheep and no one bothers to check. Bad all 'round. If you want to block TFM, you can't do it because you don't like something he wrong on WR months ago. Is anyone paying attention here ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I made a judgment solely on his contributions on Wikipedia, not WR. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

i actually agree with this block, but why did the administrator Eagles start the thread in the 1st place if he was just going to block the guy regaldess of anything anyone here said? why not just do it yourslef if you werent seeking consensapproval without going through this weird ritual? User:Smith Jones 22:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to know what Eagles was doing in there at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

While I would have agreed with the block being a person who supported indef before, there was no consensus in here for a block, the best solution is to create an RFC. So unblock and develop a better consensus on this Secret ^account 23:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't want to do anything as big as this without first getting the opinions of the community. I am still a newer admin, and TFM has been indef blocked many times and subsequently unblocked. I waited a little bit for another admin here to do it, but I decided to step up and do it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

That is really poor reasoning, as are your old diffs, your diff to an old post on WR, and the 22 minutes you allowed for discussion. Please undo this bad block now, and gain consensus for an indef. Deciding to "step up and do it" doesn't show the valiant judicious decision you might think it does; it shows impulsivity and a lack of diligence or even review of the matter. What brought you to this matter? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Sandy - did you even read the crappy luz-filled edits from this editor just above?. I give him top marks for being a manupilative and clever little prick, and artfully manouvering various editors as they jump though wiki-hoops to AGF etc. etc. Ultimately however a pointless troll whose fun needs to end (if only because we're all bored of it now - Fat Man - seven year olds find repetitive comedy humorous - the rest of us like fresh material - there's a good chap) - keep blocked and block the future socks. It's not complex. Pedro :  Chat  23:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Pedro, why are you not blocked for calling another editor a "clever little prick"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know Sandy - perhaps you have an idea - why not fill the rest of us in on your thoughts? Whilst we're at it I've a mental list of admins and bureaucrats whose behaviour has gone well beyond blocking yet nothing ether happens - your mate Raul being a shining example. I'm sure there must be a reason why these people (me included) don't seem to get blocked.... Pedro :  Chat  23:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks to be a freshly minted admin making a mark. But others weighing in here didn't exactly look at evidence before issuing an indef. Wrong on many levels; 22 minutes between notification and indef block? That's lots of discussion. Unblock needed. Pedro, I think LULZ is a rather normal response when one is targetted by a freshly minted admin. Yes, I went through all the diffs before weighing in here; how many of you did ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, with respect I'm not exactly the most block happy admin around - but the "oh look a death threat" and "nom nom" all caps bullshit is hardly overlookable. I don't need to remind you that indef doe not mean infinite..... I personally think we'd all be happier without Fat Man, but that's my opinion only and consensus may well be different. Pedro :  Chat  23:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

For gosh sakes, why not respond with lulz to something as stupid as this? Beats indignation. Of course, we don't yet know the background or what brought Eagles247 to this matter anyway. Maybe you'd be happier without TFM, but speak fer yerself. I'd be happier with less child admins. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure which bit of but that's my opinion only you missed in my comment immediately above yours but funnily enough I was speaking for myself. Complex stuff, clearly. Pedro :  Chat  23:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

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

...or is The Fat Man account the master account and the former accounts were blocked as socks? --Mkativerata (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Fat Man is the main account, then he devised the plan to troll with BErD. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

it doesnt really matter whether or not that Eagles is a new admin or not. he has the right to block accorind to Wikipedia policies. my real confusion here is why he bothered to even make this WP:ANI report in the first place. he was already convinced that The Fat Man should be blocked when he made it; he left it open for about .22 hours worth of comments then indef blocked him. my question is -- why not just skip the WP:ANI rigmarolodex and just block the guy, if consensus is so unimportant?? User:Smith Jones 23:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

If everyone here said "NOOOO DON'T BLOCK HIM!" then I wouldn't have blocked. I wasn't sure what the rest of the community would think about my decision if I just blocked him, esp. because other admins have unblocked TFM in the past. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

the notice here was made for teh Lulz. now eagles is a big time AN/I endorsed admin blocker of problem editors. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

no offense, and i dont want to tell how to do your job, but you shouldnt really care about that. or, if you are going to care aobut that, you should give us more than a couple of minutes to talk about it. opening this thread and then abruptly resolving it without ereaching any consensus just creates more bad feelings than if you had just blocked the sucker (evne though i agree with your block, i still think that you picked a weird way to do it). Your decision was right, but you kind of took the long way around and now you're rubbing lots of people the wrong way who now think you just asked for their opinions specifically so that you could cut them off and ignore them halfway thorugh a convservation. User:Smith Jones 23:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

As a wise admin once said, no one is perfect when they obtain the tools. Adminship is a learning process, and I have learned from this thread how to address a disruptive user. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking through the diffs I have to say I support this block. It's annoying because the user has made good edits, no doubt about it. The user himself asked on User talk:Gimmetrow (can't be bothered fishing out the diff) "Can I have, like, a trolling "allowance" where I can perform mostly (let's say 93%) innocuous edits?". No, that can't be allowed to happen. And it will happen if he is not indefinitely blocked. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Eagles, those diffs look stale to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate further? I know he was blocked less than a month ago, but he clearly has not changed based on his comments in the thread. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Posts on WR are mostly meaningless here. As for the en.WP diffs, blocks are preventative, not punitive. What's he done lately? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

A proposal should be made to Fat Man that he should stop trolling, or it's indef the next time it happens. Undo this block and I'll propose a solution, his comments and article writing are sometimes spot on. It's hard to tell the difference between trolling or a good faith comment. Secret ^account 23:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with this proposal, but I doubt he'd take it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Why not do your homework instead of asking dum questions here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The admin did the right thing by asking some opinions first, which is what good admins should do in cases that might be debatable. Fat Man / BErD is only blocked, not banned, so he's free to make a reasonable argument as to why he should get unblocked, if he cares to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The only opinions one is likely to get in 22 minutes are those who have this page watchlisted. This may be a cross-section of you, but not of the community. And how would the community have been damaged by a full discussion before the block, given the age of the incidents complained of? Kablammo (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe every user in wikipedia should be notified of every possible decision under discussion, so that we can actually get full input from "the community". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

22 minutes from notice to the editor until indefblock is hardly adequate.

Do you really contend that it is?Kablammo (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe if some real admins had weighed in, instead of the usual denizens of this dungeon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

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

I'm lost. Who are we talking about? Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Erm, The Fat Man... AD 23:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

How you might quietly unblock with a note in the log, "no consensus yet"? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Focus, boys, focus. We're talking about 1) what brought you (Eagles247) to this matter and why didn't you read TFM's talk page, and 2) why isn't Pedro blocked for calling The Fat Man a "clever prick"? And in general, we're talking about why a small subset of people who hang out at ANI make decisions to indef a user in 22 minutes with little discussion, no homework, and no knowledge of the situation or the editor in question. Or, as Gwen Gale says, how long it's going to take Eagles247 to figure out how to undo the bad block. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

1) I was part of the BErD blocking discussion, and I saw TFM's post on WR about how fun it was to mess with Wikipedia. I was a little frustrated, but an admin assured everyone prior that there was a legitimate reason for the alt. account. I have Tele... 's talk page on my watchlist, and I noticed TFM's "u r dumb" comment to his page. I investigated into TFM's return, but failed to notice his recent block. 2) Dunno, probably not that severe of a personal attack 3) I did my homework on TFM, thank you 4) Gwen never said whether she was for or against the block, but rather she didn't agree with the process (like many others, including you, here). I'm not going to unblock unless consensus can be reached here. There's no need for TFM to troll here when he is perfectly able to request unblock on his talk page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Guilty until proven innocent, eh? Kablammo (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It was a good block, and if Fat/BErD really cares about it, he can post a reasonable unblock request. What Pedro said is more a comment on behavior. Calling people "dumb" is a personal attack, a hundred times worse than metaphorical comments about body parts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Kablammo (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Glad we're clear that it's ok to call people pricks on Wiki; Baseball, if I call you a prick, will I be blocked? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Nah, I'd recognize that you're just needling me. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sandy, can't say I'm surprised to see you defending this editor here. If you're so concerned about the lack of discussion here and the supposedly early block without properly understanding the situation. I fail to understand how you could have supported Gimmetrow's unblock (after countless unblock requests being declined by a number of admins, and without any discussion at all. I suggest anyone who does want to do homework on this read User_talk:Gimmetrow#What_do_you_think_you.27re_doing.3F. As to Pedro's behaviour, while highly improper, it's not relevant to this, you're making that mistake again, of thinking that the actions of certain users (specifically admins) justify trolling by others. As to what brought Eagles to this matter, I again fail to see the relevance. Also, saying the edits are stale is a poor excuse, and that the fat man had been unblock after some of them even more so, considering the circumstances of the unblock. It seems like most users here support a block. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not surprised that you again fail to see any relevance, or that you still haven't understood that Gimme's unblock was proper. Hang in there, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Can we just take this down a couple of notches please? Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Would that be from "prick" to just "dick", or just how would we go down a notch from the typical discourse acceptable at ANI? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The fact that Fat/BErD called someone "dumb" just today is the answer to the question, "What has he done lately?", never mind the socking he got away with (for awhile). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I am surprised to see SG here, as she is usually a voice of reason. However, this editor has clearly stated their intention to troll Wikipedia and disrupt our project. Instead of being given clear reasoning for unblock, we've been rudely ordered to "do our homework" and "stop asking dumb questions". I did my homework, and I see an editor who has been trolling our project, quite plainly and deliberately. Insulting the admins/editors that comment here isn't going to help anything, rather the opposite. AD 00:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Brilliant, well thats fine so. Wiki love for the admin. Eagle getts 'a little frustrated' reading off site, comes back to wiki, goes through the contribs, plucks out a few from a while back, calls for a lynching, blocks, closes discussion. Job done. Hmm. Could I log in tomorrow or next week and find myself blocked for a combination of things scattered, days, weeks, whatever ago? Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for misunderstanding the timeline, Ceoil. Appreciate it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Ceoil got the timeline exactly right. Just what are you trying to prove here, Eagles? You read some very stale diffs, an offsite old post, and indeffed an editor based on that and one current and already resolved misunderstanding, after 22 minutes of discussion. If you'd like to make a name for yourself as a new admin, this isn't the best way to go about doing so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep saying this until maybe you read it: Fat/BErD called someone "dumb" just today, and only retracted it after the lightbulb went on and he realized he might not escape his own self-constructed noose this time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You're so right, Sandy. You're always right. New admins are different than older ones. His four previous indef blocks were mistakes. In fact, TFM isn't a troll, but a constructive user who has never joked on Wikipedia. </sarcasm> What you are missing in all this is the fact that the BErD incident happened months ago, not yesterday. I've told you all of my "motives" for the block, and yet you choose to ignore them and judge me based on your ignorance to any opposing side. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Eagles, that is a response fit for a child. Wasn't one of Fat Man's blocks for using the word "douchebaggery"? How is that worse than "prick"? Thank you for confessing that you merely blocked him because he had been previously blocked; great adminning there. In fact, you reblocked him for stale diffs already discussed. You're impressing me more by the minute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Is sarcasm anymore helpful than what is no more an irritated response to self-righteous insults? AD 00:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The timeline is a simplified and biased hyperbole. "Calls for lynching", really. This is a website, not 17th century New England. AD 00:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

@Gwen: Got it, thanks. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support block. Enough is enough, this user has wasted too much community time. --Elonka 00:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• What a perfectly strange thing to say; I don't see TFM wasting anyone's time here-- looks like this is the Eagles247/Baseball Bugs show. Did you perchance review any of the history? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• The guy had a chance to come here and explain himself, and instead he hanged himself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Accusing everyone who disagrees with you (most of the users in this discussion) of not properly reviewing the situation (when they have) isn't very helpful. Those looking at the history may also want to look at your history with this user. I understand you get a laugh out of following The Fat Man's trolling on various sites? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• I spent some time looking through the user's entire history: His block log, his contribs over the last month, and other edits going back years. Is he 100% a drag on the project? No. Has he done anything particularly helpful lately? Not that I can see. Is he disruptive? Definitely. Mostly his edits over the last month have involved leaving insults on talkpages, and posting numerous bizarre questions at various Reference Desk pages, like, "What would happen if scientists blew up the moon?", "Do Filipinos worship chicken bones," "Why do American football coaches dress so sloppily," and "What are the worst American accents in movies?" These kinds of things are not helpful to the project. TFM may have done some good work on Wikipedia in the past, but more recently his actions seem designed to disrupt, and "for the lulz". That is why I am supporting the idea of a permanent ban. Enough is enough. Let's get rid of him and get back to work. --Elonka 04:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support block If we're voting... I've yet to see a single argument that shows TFM is a net positive to our project - only insulting, sarcastic and unpleasant remarks to those who are supporting a block. And yet, I've seen, through diffs here and my own research, that he is unfortunately a net negative currently. So with regret, this is my position. AD 00:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support unblock: You shouldn't block someone for something said on WR, nor should you block someone for comments made nearly one month ago. This whole episode was a spontaneous reaction (perhaps to what was read on WR) by Eagles247. There was no need for this discussion or block.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • You're way off the mark. He called someone "dumb" just today, which demonstrates he's learned nothing from having escaped from previous blocks. And he wasn't blocked for WR, just that WR alerted the admin to the user bragging about having escaped 4 blocks, which merited further review of Fat/BErD's situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC) You've seen it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• I'll wait and see what Fat Man's reaction on this block in his talk page before voting whether to support blocking or unblock Secret ^account 00:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support block of Pedro for calling The Fat Man a prick. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I second this. Also, check out today's featured article. How appropriate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a vote on how many editors agree with Pedro's assessment of Fat/BErD's behavior? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, now you're trolling, and boring at that. Do you read arb cases? Consensus doesn't overrule wiki pillars, and civility is supposed to be a pillar, and is supposed to be upheld by admins. If a gazillion editors agree with Pedro (they don't), that doesn't make it OK for him to call TFM a prick. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You're funny. OK, how about if we recommend to block Pedro for an appropriate length, like maybe 5 minutes? Or maybe 10, in order to appease the poor, innocent, aggrieved indefee. Never mind, I see they already took action. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocking Pedro will just cause unneeded drama, yes his behavior should have been better, but the last thing we need is OMG Drama and lose valuable contributers. We already lost several in the past month, including our FA leader. I left a message on Fat Man's talk page in language he understand. Secret ^account 00:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe we should all just calm down and have a civil chat over a nice cup of tea Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• No, let's have kiddie kool-ade, while an editor is unjustly blocked and called a prick by an admin. And goodness, let's not cause any drama, for heavens sake, this is ANI !!! Aren't we here because of Eagle247's drama and isn't that the purpose of his thread to begin with? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• If Pedro does it over and over, and creates a sock to do it also, then your argument will have some merit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support block, per TFM's trolling in this very discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support unblock. I can't see anything in his recent history to justify a block, not even a short one, unless I'm overlooking something. I think the dumb comment was meant as a joke. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  What makes it okay if it's a joke? And what exactly is funny about his edits? You're aware that The Fat Man's humour has included the mocking of mentally disabled people in the past? As to the recent behaviour comment, it is clear from the older behaviour that this is an ongoing problem, it is clear from the (albeit minimal) recent behaviour that this is still ongoing. It's logical to conclude this isn't going to stop (TFM has made at least two promises in the past to stop his trolling. Also making a comment saying he would stop his disruption at ANI, and then making comments like this) see here, a comment from the last admin who unblocked (this comment was prior to comments like this. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  Kingpin, your dislike of The Fat Man is well known, but you really shouldn't make up stories about him mocking mentally disabled people in the past. That's not nice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  I have no dislike of TFM as a person, it's his edits I have issue with. Such as this mocking of mentally disabled people. I fail to see how that is not mocking mentally disabled people, maybe you could explain? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  These are jokes, Kingpin. I honestly don't see that comment as harmful, and the "U R dumb" thing was nothing. He has a particular sense of humour that maybe you either love or hate, but he doesn't mean any harm. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  Nobody has explained to me how this is funny, or this for that matter, and I fail to see how anybody could find them funny, or how attempts at humour justify attacking other editors. As to him not meaning any harm, he's clearly aware that he is trolling, and clearly wants to continue doing so (as evidenced by asking for a "trolling allowance", and making sarcastic promises to stop) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  I agree with Kingpin: these comments are insulting to people who have intellectual disabilities, and offensive to people of good will. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock per SlimVirgin. Kablammo (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock, Slim has it right, we don't block users based on stale diffs and reading something old offsite we don't like. This was admin drama, nothing more. SandyGeorgia 00:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support block I'll agree that nothing recent is in and of itself worthy of a block, but there has been various amounts of trolling from this account for too long. AniMate 00:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock I think the comments made (in bad taste) were over and done, things said in the past are sometimes best left in the past...Modernist (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  And what makes you think these comments will not be re-made by TFM in the future (e.g. not leaving them in the past)? Considering one of these comments were from yesterday (just over 24 hours). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Because our fundamental principle is WP:AGF...Modernist (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

But this is a user who has been trolling for years. And seems to be incapable of stopping. One year ago he promised to stop, and continued, one month ago he promised to stop and continued. Of course, he later claims that both of those promises were sarcastic. So what exactly makes you think it will stop this time? what is different? AGF only stretches so far. A user who has been trolling this site for years? No, I think it's fair to say they will keep trolling it for years if we let them. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support block - issues about his behavior clearly needs some more discussion, perhaps on a more personal level on his talkpage, allowing input and understanding from the blockee. Off2riorob (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Question: I ask this in good faith because I don't see the answer above in this wall of text, but how is an editor who has admitted to being another indef blocked trolling editor still allowed to edit here in the first place? Blocks are for editors, not accounts. Am I missing something? Dayewalker (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support block - for unrepentant attacks on everyone's integrity, and especially for having socked and been allowed to get away with it. He should have been indef'd and banned at that time. The community's generosity towards Fat/BErD was met by a metaphorical "F.U." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Should never have been unblocked in the first place. T. Canens (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock of the Portly One. Honestly the drama that surrounds his Wideness is a product of over-reactions to his rather innocuous funning. People who are offended by him would do well to simply ignore his harmless carry-on rather than initiating major dramafests here at ANI. Crafty (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support block, he's had plenty of chances to contribute usefully and he apparently still doesn't get it. Nakon 01:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Unblock the Fat Man, per the FAC Lady and the Slim one. Ferrylodge concurs.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: it takes a special kind of talent (or perhaps a special kind of talent) to make such a complete and utter mess of indeffing a user who so blatantly deserves it. The mess is clear enough (ANI / 22 minutes / no clear consensus / indef block by person bringing the matter to ANI / ?????), but so is the fact that the user is clearly not a net benefit to the project. Between the abusive sock account and the general manner he continues to communicate, quite apart from whatever lies further in the past, enough is enough. Site ban, and refer to WP:STANDARDOFFER. Rd232 ^talk 01:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• I couldn't agree more. This block was handled horribly, but the outcome is probably right. AniMate 01:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support block The Fat Man is a troll. We block trolls. I don't know why some users are leaping to the defense of such an obvious troll. I'm all for a little genuine levity and humor once in a while, that is not what I see here, I see blatant, deliberate trolling. I'm sure he is loving all the noise generated here by those who insist on defending his trolling. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Reality check: As long as I've been aware of TFM here, it has been clear to me that he is a capable editor, for example, making the Ima Hogg article not only a Featured Article, but also working hard to make it so on the WP:Main Page as an April Fool article. That is creative talent that should not be thrown away unnecessarily. Having said that, however, that isn't a reason for unnecessary disposal of an worthy, although I would welcome comments from him, on the basis that "you may be good, but unless others agree with you, you are on your own". I live in hope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodhullandemu (talk • contribs) 02:05, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

• Support Per above. Unfortunately. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock What has gotten up with ANI lately? Geez, it's like a swarm of hornets landed and made everyone into ban-hammers. Let's go through this in order. First off, the original reason given for the creation of this discussion was a comment made by the user on Wikipedia Review, which is clearly not relevant to actions on Wikipedia and makes me doubt Eagles' understanding of how policy works here. Then, the edits that were mentioned. This is a rather silly comment, but when did dumb become a curse word? Besides, the fact that the user's actions seem to often be rather sarcastic to me. This question was made in reference to the user reading Religion in the Philippines and not seeing anything about chicken bones written in there. Maybe a silly question, true, but nothing bad. Calling someone silly is bannable now? And this is the most ridiculous one of all. This edit was made in response to this section being created. Either the two of them have a joking relationship, which is what it looks like, or Mike R's comment was completely out of line. It's one or the other. The other ones are about the previous block, which doesn't apply to this one. So, what are we left with? Oh, right, nothing. This is ridiculous. Silverseren^C 03:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support indef; shoulda-coulda stuck last time... but *no* we had to endure moar shite. Jack Merridew 03:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support indef block His edit history speaks for itself. Each separate action could doubtless be justified by a skilled wikilawyer, although so far noone has managed to do this very convincingly. The combined effect and intent, however, seems clear enough. Mathsci (talk) 04:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support block per Baseball Bugs. --John (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment What I don't understand is why any admins would spend so much time trying to find a reason to ban an editor with a contrary sense of humor but who is otherwise harmless as opposed to helping out here, where there is evidence presented of editors who serially violate WP's more serious policies like NPOV and NPA. Before editors like the Fat Man get blocked, the more serious violators of WP's policies need to be dealt with. Cla68 (talk) 05:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Disclosure request. Could users commenting here to support an unblock please state if they are Wikipedia Review contributors. (We'll assume block supporters aren't, but if any are, please state as well.) Rd232 ^talk 08:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock He hasn't done anything recently even remotely warranting an indefinite block. Sure, he's done crap in the past, but he should have been blocked then if it was such a big deal. If he's really the horrible troll you all think he is, he'll do something in the future warranting an indef block and you can block him then. He should be kept on a relatively tight leash due to past incidents, but this is really ridiculous. Activities on WR are irrelevant to this discussion. I do not comment there, and I do not care about what the people there do. This thread is by far the most disruption he's managed to cause recently, and that's far more the responsibility of the admin than of him.--Dycedarg ж 09:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support block There seems to be a school of thought around here, espoused by those I call the Incivility League, that it is OK to cleverly impugn people's integrity, writing, etc. so long as you don't use a slightly-expanded Carlineque list of specific words. I can't agree with that. If it was meant to be insulting, and it had the effect of being insulting, than what difference does it make if it used a vulgarity or not? Form over substance is a bad idea. TFM should stay blocked until he promises to cut it out, and if he breaches that promise, should quickly and non controversially be blocked again.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support block until he starts acting like an adult human being again. --Conti|✉ 11:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support unblock per Silverseren and per "you need to get a sense of humor and stop taking yourself so serious". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support block This user cannot even communicate in this very discussion properly, let alone the frequent disruption he causes elsewhere. Yes, he's made some good contributions in the past. But he is simply not worth the time and effort taken to deal with his utterly unnecessary nonsense. He doesn't want to take Wikipedia seriously, so I see no reason why he should continue editing here until and unless he does. As an aside, I wholly disagree with the absurd notion that he has to start swearing and cursing before it should be constitued as "real disruption", so to speak. --Dorsal Axe 13:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support block Making some good contributions much of the time doesn't entitle you to troll the rest of the time. Everyone makes mistakes and everyone is new at some point, but this editor is neither new nor making mistakes. His responses in the thread up above indicate to me that he thinks the project is a joke and that we don't deserve his respect. The impression I get is that he doesn't care if he's blocked or not. And on top of that, it appears he has created at least TWO sockpuppets for purposes of disruptive trolling in the recent past. One of them is Bad edits r dumb (talk · contribs) and the other is WatchingWales (talk · contribs), as he himself states [37]. He shows no indication he will stop this behavior, even taunting the community with more "jokes" in the thread above. This is behavior detrimental to building an encyclopedia and is well into WP:DISRUPT territory. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support unblock Per Stephan Schulz and Silverseren and per the fact that humour should not automatically be equated with trolling. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 14:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support block: Having a particular sense of humor is not a get-out-of-jail-free card to disrupt the project in various ways over a long period of time. Kansan (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• [38] and [39]. Can we agree now that he is just here for the lulz now? I don't care how good of an editor he was two years ago, he doesn't want to be here anymore. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support block He's just taking the piss at this point. HalfShadow 23:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Obviously support block: a block-evading troll is indeffed, and instead of collapsing and not feeding the trolls, we waste everyone's time? Way to give trolls what they want, guys. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Pedro blocked and unblocked

Pedro unblocked

Now Geni blocked Pedro for three hours for his language, while this block won't affect him, as he's in England I believe it's still puntative. Unblock Secret account 00:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC) I'm in the UK. And having seen the damage late night admining can do you would have a hard time arguing it is not preventative.©Geni 00:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Agreed Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC) No more punitive than the block of TFM. Sometimes I think the "preventive not punitive" mantra is overrated here. Disruption over a long period, as in the case of TFM, is difficult to deal with because people will always say it has to happened right here, right now, otherwise nothing can be done. So the trick is, to troll in small enough doses that aren't really that bad on their own, but altogether present a big problem. Now that Pedro's once clean log has now been marked, maybe he'll be more careful to keep the atmosphere a little less crass. AD 00:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC) According to Pedro's contribs he's surely in bed now. The block was to "set an example". Not sure of the utility of that as cause for a block, but it would be good to just let this one lie and not go drahma-crazy over a three hour block during sleepy time. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Agreed, let this block stay. Should hopefully encourage Pedro to stay a bit more calm in future, and not attack other editors like that (regardless of how disruptive they are). Blocking wouldn't have been my choice of action here, but equally, unblocking wouldn't be, if another admin decides a block is necessary. - Kingpin13 (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Wrong, wrong, wrong. Blocks "to set examples" are not directed to a general audience unlikely to take cognisance of them, so must surely be irrelevant. "Pour encourager les autres" does not necessarily work as a lesson here, and never has in historical terms. Meanwhile, the block of Pedro was poorly-argued, especially on the blockee's Talk page. Call me cynical, but if I am being sanctioned, surely I have a right to know the chapter and verse that authorises that, and the particulars supporting the block under those provisions. We do not operate as a legal system here, but some things are both above and beyond that. Rodhullandemu 01:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Rodhullandemu has now unblocked. Oh well. AD 00:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Yea lets not wheel war over this Secret account 00:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC) I had said 5 to 10 minutes would fit the crime, and it turned out to be 14. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Indef for you are dumb, 14 minutes for 'prick'. Lovely. Ceoil (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC) If Fat/BErD had only said it once, maybe he wouldn't have been blocked. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC) The Fat Man Who Never Came Back was blocked for rather more than that.©Geni 01:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Didn't you know Ceoil, block lengths decrease exponentially with the seriousness of the comment made :) Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 01:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC) There is zero point in blocking any editor for three hours, unless it's a rapidly-redistributed IP address. To do so for an established editor, in the absence of a course of conduct that requires immediate action tends to become beyond preventative, and tends towards punitive. Pedro is a long-time editor here, and is due some respect for that. The best of us occasionally err. However, calling someone a "prick" isn't necessarily that different from referring them to WP:DICK, although it might have been better worded. But that's no reason for blocking, and certainly not without appropriate warnings such as are the entitlement of any editor here. That's why I unblocked, and if you think I'm wrong so to do, your remedy is thisaway. Rodhullandemu 01:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC) My comment above continues to apply: lets not go drahma-crazy of an unblock of a three hour block while the editor concerned is fast asleep. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC) I agree. None of this is worth your bits, or an RfC, or an ArbCom asking questions about wheel warring.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Motion to close

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

Yeah, if this doesn't stop soon people are going to start hugging and that just gets creepy. HalfShadow 04:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a motion to close the Pedro thread, but there isn't any consensus on Fat Man block or unblock for that matter so I oppose a full closing of the thread for now. Secret ^account 04:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

This is a block review, not a ban discussion. But yes, there's no reason to close the discussion...other than to restart it in a way where all of the noise, personal attacks, etc. are stamped out. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

By the banning policy, if the community decides not to overturn the indefinite block he will be considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". Ergo, this is a ban discussion.--Dycedarg ж 08:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

General observation

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

My own take is that, given this was brought here for review, if there is no consensus for that block, then there should be no block (getting there by unblocking if need be). Doesn't seem to matter if the block has already been made or not. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I feel the opposite way. The administrative action has already been taken, and admins are entitled to some deference in how they use their tools. The discussion is regarding a proposed unblock, and needs consensus to succeed.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what the person immediately above me (As at 12:27 on the 7th of December 2010 UTC) said. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 12:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Would it be unreasonable for a sock and a disruptive troll to stay blocked unless and until he makes an unblock request, and then that request can be considered on its merits? - David Biddulph (talk) 12:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

"Disruptive trolling" is in the eye of the beholder in many cases. Malleus Fatuorum 12:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

What an absurd position Wehwalt. Admins are not entitled to any special "deference", and it's distasteful even to suggest that they are. Malleus Fatuorum 12:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There should be consensus for a block, or to uphold a block. The result should not depend on who took action first, who got here first, or how the issue was framed. And deference to "discretion" gives the personal judgments or whims of administrators the force of law. Admins serve a ministerial role, to apply standards, not create them. And those standards should be consistently applied. Kablammo (talk) 12:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

An example of the point: The first post in this multi-part section is by an admin looking for consensus to block. The admin did not wait until consensus developed, but imposed a block soon after the thread started. The issue here is whether there is consensus to block. There is not. Kablammo (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

A complicating factor here, is if a disruptive editor has the support of other disruptive editors, does that count towards community "consensus". Sheer number of voices either way isn't necessarily an accurate indicator of community consensus, especially when some are stating obvious untruths or have long block logs themselves. I think most of the people participating in this discussion are acting in good faith, but there do seem to be a few who are jumping in for no other reason than that they enjoy giving the pot a good stir. --Elonka 15:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

God knows there's cliquism on the wiki, but who decides if votes should be discounted because of it? --Wehwalt (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You can't just discount input because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Even in the above discussion, an admin seems to be causing a rift by wanting another website to shape what happens on this website; unless you have good evidence to show for a breach of our site policies, there's nothing to justify the need for this. Users should disclose their involvement (if any) in a dispute - that certainly plays some role - and that might extend to another website. But that's as far as it goes. Categorically stating that anyone who edits on Wikipedia should disclose if they've edited Wikipedia Review is a bit silly. It wouldn't be much of a project if every single thing was simple, easy and exactly how you wanted it. Ncmvocalist (talk) Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Cliquism, where there is good reason to suspect it may cause discussion not to represent the wider community's view, needs to be identified as far as possible. Only with the benefit of that disclosure can the weight of argument (WP:NOTAVOTE) be determined by a neutral observer. As to the argument about external websites: we shouldn't police activity on external websites, but nor we should ignore information relevant to policing our own merely because it originates externally. Rd232 ^talk 15:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Well either you have some reason to have a suspicion, or you don't; you are not here to be police, prosecution, judge and jury. Allowing strong unsubstantiated personal opinions/assumptions to prejudice the way administration occurs on Wikipedia is precisely what impedes genuine resolution on Wikipedia. Unless you can provide some genuine reason why being a Wikipedia Review participant is relevant to this discussion, it really is not appropriate to require any editor to disclose that information, nor is it relevant to what is happening here. And in saying this, I note that I am not a participant on WR and I don't believe I have ever interacted with the editor in question - I might have possibly in 2008, when I was asking many ArbCom candidates some questions, but I honestly don't recall. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

? Fat Man is a participant in WikipediaReview, as are some of the editors commenting here (as you would expect in the circumstances). That is sufficient grounds for asking for disclosure, in order to properly evaluate how representative this discussion is of the community's view. Rd232 ^talk 16:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not sufficient grounds; your understanding is fundamentally flawed. Wikipedia Community is diverse, and each member will have memberships to or participation in many other websites, organisations, and so on, or might not have any at all; listing which of these may "potentially" have any effect on the project is limitless and outside of our scope, capacity, and resources, and it poses a far more significant rift within our own Wikipedia community as we start defining Wikipedia based on individuals who are exclusively signed up here and here only. What each editor would need to disclose is their level of involvement, if any, and it's up to them to state if it's not total involvement and why. Merely being a participant is insufficient; it's being a participant and the extent of interaction or activity with the user in question, and in some circumstances, how they became aware of this discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can disclose I'm a (somewhat inactive) member of Amnesty International. So what? Am I likely to meet people there who are likely to have a very particular view of FatMan's indeffing, and are they likely to turn up here and comment? The point is fundamentally that discussions must reflect the community's view; but since the entire community cannot participate in any given discussion, we have to make sure that the sample of users participating isn't biased. This shouldn't really be a tricky concept. it's the same concept as that behind WP:MEAT and WP:CANVAS (neither of which policies seems to apply here, but the reasoning for the policies' existence does). Rd232 ^talk 17:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems you have difficulty understanding simple messages, so I'll try to be clearer one more time. The policies exist to say that MEAT and CANVASS behavior is prohibited; they do not say that anyone who is registered on another website can be excluded from the Community on your unsubstantiated say-so. So, unless you can provide an actual basis for bias from members of that website, this information is not relevant or required at this time and there is no reason for those users to be excluded from the Community. As you have not produced any actual basis for requiring this info, no one needs to comply with your disclosure requests; in line with policy, all they might need to do is state their level of involvement (if any) and that will address relevant issues of bias. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

ROFL. "difficulty understanding simple messages" - yes indeed, considering that you're agreeing with me - state their level of involvement includes involvement offsite. You would (I presume) hardly object to a disclosure request if WR was a private mail server like EEML, so why should it be different because it's a website? Rd232 ^talk 18:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If an editor is registered on Wikipedia Review and has not had any involvement with the editor in question, they do not need to disclose all of that exhaustively - your request for disclosure seems to expect all of that, but that info isn't actually necessary: such an editor could say they are uninvolved. This incident has been complicated enough; requiring disclosure about whether or not each editor is registered to another particular website (that doesn't have a CANVASS/MEAT issues that you are actually aware of) is just adding more unnecessary complication. Aka, the undue focus you're putting on Wikipedia Review (or EEML, or any other specific website/mailing list/organisation/etc) is not helpful. So in the future, a more helpful disclosure request would be neutral and broad (eg; "Please state your level of involvement (if any).") instead of unduly focussed on a single website. Do you understand yet? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The request was aimed at "Wikipedia Review contributors". Implicitly (we'd hope for common sense, but...) that was meant for active contributors who've engaged with Fat Man at WR, or who otherwise have engaged enough at WR to feel some kind of tribal affinity (a phenomenon which isn't overly hard to observe from reading it). The point is of course, as I keep saying, to clarify what you might call "involvement", though I preferred to phrase it in terms of commenting editors not reflecting the wider community view, because "involvement" suggests their views are invalid, irrelevant, or ignorable, and I neither said nor implied any such thing. Rd232 ^talk 21:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to force users to declare their interest in WR. For example, I have an account at WR (only posted once or twice a year ago), and I haven't read anything since. Does this discount my opinion on my own block? Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

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

I don't consider the "second move advantage" something that needs to be solved. Second move advantage means it's in the blocking admin's interest to make sure they're doing the right thing, and make sure they're going to have consensus. First move advantage means it's in their best interest to act quickly.

Wheel warring refers to repeating an action you know another admin disagrees with. Like BRD for admins. I can only assume it was defined the way it is in recognition of the advantages of having a second mover advantage over a first mover advantage. Unblocking someone that has been refused a previous unblock request isn't a repetition of an action. (That said, I can think of very few instances where I would unilaterally unblock after a previous unblock request was declined.)

But a deal I will make is for us to discourage making controversial second move unblocks without consensus, if we also strongly discourage making controversial first move blocks without prior consensus. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Hear hear. But this is getting increasingly out of scope for ANI. Rd232 ^talk 16:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If the damage is done because of a block which is not having consensus, Wikipedia hasn't designed its processes so as to maximise that damage. Sometimes an abrupt unblock becomes the means to address the harm caused by an abrupt block. An abrupt unblock doesn't become necessary where a block has gained the actual required consensus...so it's a bit of a non-issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I've read that 5 times and I still don't get it. Rd232 ^talk 17:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

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

I am sorry, Anthony. I hope you feel more cheerful soon. Yes, there is value in the way humor boosts morale and reduces stress. Lacking a consensus for the block, how about reducing it to time served and remind the blockee not to carry a good thing too far. Jehochman ^Talk 19:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

:) Anthony (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• So, I just read through the above discussion - and my first thought is that That's a good 30 minutes of my life that I'm never getting back. If Fat Man agrees not to troll anymore, he should be unblocked with all speed. But not until then. And trouts for the lot of you for carrying on like this. There may be some sort of encyclopedia that needs work, if memory serves... UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus for or against this block. Newyorkbrad's question needs answering: in this situation do we default to block or unblock? Defaulting to block smells a bit off to me. Anthony (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I could go either way. The manner of the block is off-putting, but the conduct probably justified the block. I note also that TFM has not edited since being blocked - I'm hesitant to unblock until we have a request, all things being equal. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with you, Ultraexactzz, but TFM has promised not to troll twice already in the past (see Kingpin's diffs somewhere in here), and has never made good on his promises. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't so much interested in more discussion about the merits of the block. It's pretty clear there's no consensus on that. The question that began this thread was what do we default to when there is no clear consensus? Anthony (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The default position is the one existing immediately before the matter was raised; TFMWNCB being not blocked in this instance. Blocking is a function exercised by an admin on behalf of the community, by means either of a directly expressed consensus or that by which the community entrusted them with the tools. As Brad pondered, once it is evident that no consensus exists for the new status then the old one must be resumed. Oh, and whilst I am pontificating - to Wehwalt: It is the other way round - the admin defers to the community. Every. Single. Time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It seems pretty clear that the answer to Newyorkbrad's question is that we default to unblock, because our default position is that "anybody can edit"; if we default the other way, surely we're modifying that tagline (and the rest of our attitude/positioning) to something other than that. It's similar, i reckon, to the default in an AfD being "keep", because with the lack of consensus the opinion of notability outweighs that of non-notability; here, with no consensus the ability to edit outweighs the other. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 20:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

In the NFL, when an official rules a play a certain way (i.e. an incomplete pass), the head coaches have the option to challenge the play if they deem it incorrect. The official goes in for a instant replay review, and there has to be indisputable evidence that the call should be reversed. Just a thought, though I doubt Wikipedia is for this. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The ones who are so keen on unblocking Fat/BErD should be compelled to assume responsibility for constantly monitoring its activities. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I volunteer :) Anthony (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Dontcha think that's a bit petty, Bugs? We all monitor; even if he is unblocked, as i think he ought to be, with his record, and assuming and giving benefit of doubt, it won't be long till he trolls again, and is blocked *with* process. Then we'll spend a minute or two picking up the pieces, and moving on. Meantime, i'll help, Anthony. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi

I should clarify that instead of "ones" I should have said "admins". Is it petty? Well, he's got two indef'd socks. How petty is that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, Bugs; i posted, noticed the time, realised that i was late for an appointment, and left. I also apologise twofold, for perhaps not being clear, and for probably misinterpreting you. I read your post as a sort of sour grapes thing ~ "Well, go ahead and unblock, but i'm not helping" ~ which i'm sure was not your intent. All i meant was that while i agree taht socks and trolling are not petty, because of the circumstances of the block, the large gentleman should be unblocked (according to default, as i see it), until he unambiguously trolls or socks; then Pow! Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 05:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I recommend taking a look at his recent comments on his talkpage.[40] Seems pretty unambiguous to me, that he is not taking things seriously. --Elonka 07:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• I am glad you can all agree that any appearances of trolling or "bad behaviour" shall be a blockable offense. Beware what you ask for. There are more than a couple editors in this thread who could be blocked for trolling, and I don't just mean Pedro. If you allow no tolerance for others' personality quirks, then you should expect none for your own. Personally, I find it highly distasteful to see admins using blocks to force editors to agree with the admin's interpretation of policy, when that interpretation is disputed. Again, beware what you ask for, because if that's the culture you promote, someday, someone will do it to you. (I, for instance, often notice editors repeating misinformation on ANI. I find such behaviour substantially contrary to civil discourse, and I think it should be subject to sanctions.) Finally, let me remind you all that after TFM was unblocked the last time (by me), his edits have been watched (by me), and he has behaved within the constraints of the unblock as far as I have observed. So TFM should not be blocked anew for old behaviour. The recent edit that people seem upset about happened while I was away, unfortunately. Nevertheless, it was the result of a wrong edit by User:TeleComNasSprVen, and TFM refactored prior to the block, so if that's the basis for the block, then it's a pretty thin reason. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, but editors get banned when there is a community view that they are a net detriment to the project. Sometimes a trivial incident might cause the community to re-examine the situation, and determine that a previous decision to give an editor another chance was simply wrong. Any given discussion always has an element of randomness. We have to be careful not to keep having the same discussion over and over until by random chance the editor is booted out, but it isn't illegitimate per se to revisit a prior decision when it wasn't clear cut. Rd232 ^talk 12:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Part of the problem is that behavior and reputation is cumulative. If every incident was taken in pure isolation, its likely that no one would think that any one of the hundreds of disruptive events done by TFM would be, of its own accord, grounds for blocking. In situations where we must judge a user on the totality of his contributions, positive and negative, there is going to be a difference of opinion as to how much is "enough". There is no bright line limit of the number of trollish, disruptive events are required before a user is blocked, and there is no bright line of the ratio of positive contributions to disruptions that the community believes "forgives" a person of their problems. Instead, there are going to be differing opinions, which is fine. Reasonable people may analyze the same situation and reach differing conclusions. That's why, in cases like this (see my comments below) where a user is being blocked for a pattern of small behaviors rather than a single, grossly disruptive event like vandalism or edit warring or abject racist screed or something like that, the discussion must be allowed to run its natural course before a decision is reached. Since this is one where reasonable people may possibly disagree, it is appropriate to see if enough do before proceeding, rather than shooting from the hip and seeing after the fact what people thought of it. --Jayron32 15:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
      • At the time of the last block a month ago, I repeatedly encouraged people to start a discussion to review TFM's behaviour then and decide what was appropriate. People chose not to do that. Now that rehabilitation is in process, it seems rather counter-productive to now review TFM's past behavior, as if nothing had changed. But that's fine; precedent is now firmly established for future reviews of difficult editors. Gimmetoo (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
        • This suggests that the Fat Man troll of yore is the same as the Fat Man troll of just yesterday. It's not like he's drawn some line in the sand and put his nonsense behind him, it continues. Maybe you see rehabilitation, but I don't have any patience for a troll like this; it's not like he needs to learn anything, he needs to make a simple and straightforward decision to stop being an arse, which he clearly hasn't. Enough already. Rd232 ^talk 21:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Oh hey, Gimmetoo; didn't see you there. I note you only warned me and not Baseball Bugs as well. Must be swell to be able to cherry-pick targets like that. HalfShadow 21:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
          • BB's edits there ([41] [42] [43] [44] [45]) don't seem to me to be disruptive, but if you think they are, you might want to rethink your own edits. Gimmetoo (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
          • And yet you look right past this while at the same time giving me hell for the post he's replying to. Nice one. How's that bucket holding up? HalfShadow 00:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• I think that in general, in situations where a very recent block is being discussed, or a new block is being proposed, the result of anything less than clear support for the block (whether that be no-consensus or consensus in opposition) the user in question should be unblocked. However, this singular situation is muddied by the fact that some admins have jumped the gun on the block. There may have developed a consensus to block, indeed given the general trend of the situation BEFORE the gun was jumped, it looked to be heading that way. However, once the discussion process was short-circuited, it generated instant sympathy for the blocked user and resulted in a muddying of the waters. Now, it may have arisen, had the discussion been let run for a day or so, that consensus would have led him to not be blocked, or it may have not. But the action of short-circuiting the discussion has led to a muddying of the waters regarding the block. It is unclear which objections are to a) blocking TFM at all b) blocking TFM before the discussion was done c) General anti-admin sentiment. In the future, regardless of how this turns out, this should be a lesson to let the community discussion take its course. If no iminent harm is currently coming to article text (such as edit warring or vandalism), block and ban discussions can afford the proper time for users to deliberate. This did not happen in this case, and we now have megabytes of bullshit because of that. --Jayron32 07:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Breakdown of opinions

Based just on the comments made in the introduction and "Re-open discussion, The Fat Man indef" section, here a quick summary of each editors opinion (based on quick skimming by me, please please re-check and update (template at User:Kingpin13/TFM)), some users who commented here are not included, as their opinion was not made clear, or they were apparently neutral:

Extended content

Please note this may not be 100% accurate, instead of relying on it, please read through the discussion yourself. Cheers, - Kingpin13 (talk) Those in support of blocking (first 9 prior to block) Eagles247 Kingpin13 John Baseball Bugs Jayron Conti Netalarm HalfShadow Sandstein Smith Jones Secret Pedro Mkativerata Aiken drum Elonka SarekOfVulcan AniMate Off2riorob Timotheus Canens Nakon Beeblebrox Fastily Jack Merridew Mathsci Wehwalt Dorsal Axe Burpelson AFB Kansan Rd232 Those opposed to blocking (first 1 prior to block) William S. Saturn SandyGeorgia Gwen Gale Ceoil SlimVirgin Kablammo Modernist Craftyminion Anythingyouwant Silver seren Dycedarg Stephan Schulz Dr.K.

This is mainly because of the claims that there is a very clear case of no consensus, which I don't believe there is necessarily. Of course, strength of arguments should also be considered. Personally I feel the arguments presented for blocking are stronger, but since I myself support a block, I may be bias. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't really be possible to feel that the arguments favoring a block are stronger than those against one without personally supporting that conclusion (and vice versa of course). If reaching a conclusion makes you biased then the only unbiased people are the ones who don't know which side has the better arguments - and they're not much help either. 87.254.87.2 (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• By the way, while y'all are talking, someone might want to check out User:Cowl head. No edits, no contributions, yet the account exists and User:Bad edits r dumb (as I understand it a sock of The Fat Man) has taken the time to place a welcome template on its talk page. Possible set up for use as our suspect's next sock? - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • User:Cowl head was created at 8.56 on 28 Sep, and welcomed by Fat Man's User:Bad edits r dumb account at 8.57 (with edit summary "HI COWL HEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"), despite having no contributions or deleted contributions. If someone can explain to me how that's kosher, I'd like to hear it. PS Bear in mind this ANI thread of 28 Sep. Rd232 ^talk 11:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Based on all of the above discussion, this is my breakdown of the declared positions. Please feel free to correct this summary. There seems to be no consensus. If that is the case, the above discussion leans strongly towards default to unblock. Anthony (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

Those in support of blocking AniMate Baseball Bugs Beeblebrox Burpelson AFB Conti Dorsal Axe Eagles Elonka FASTILY HalfShadow Jack Merridew John jpgordon Kansan Kingpin Mkativerata Mathsci Netalarm Nakon Off2riorob Pedro Rd232 Sandstein SarekOfVulcan T. Canens UltraExactZZ Those opposed to blocking Anthony Anythingyouwant Ceoil Cla68 Crafty Dr.K Dycedarg Gimmetoo Gwen Gale Kablammo Modernist Rocksanddirt SandyGeorgia Silverseren SlimVirgin Stephan Schulz The Fat Man Who Never Came Back William S. Saturn

I have removed Timotheus Canens and Aiken drum from the "block" column because I couldn't find their comments, and Secret, because their last position seems to be: "I'll wait and see what Fat Man's reaction on this block in his talk page before voting whether to support blocking or unblock." Anthony (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

(Note, "T. Canens" and "Timotheus Canens" are the same person, and Aiken drum's sig appears as "AD", if I remember correctly; search the wikitext for Aiken drum. I'll compare ours and my summary in more depth in a second) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

See User:Kingpin13/TFM/Comparison - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Just one question: since when did we need consensus to block a block-evading sockpuppet? That's policy, not a matter requiring additional consensus. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you could clarify precisely what the block-evading sockpuppet you are referring to? Gimmetoo (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Cowlhead is now blocked as an obvious sock , and it is alleged that the user Big Brother of the Party is also a sock, and is likewise now indef'd; and on this page, he evaded his block with an IP address, which could be an impostor, of course, but I think that's a wrap, folks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Big Brother of The Party is a sock of Baseball Fanatic, not TFMWNBC. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Holy Headlights, Batman! That's at least my second major gaffe of the day. Time for a short break. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Based on our discussions at User talk:Kingpin13#The fat man, Kingpin 13 will be posting our agreed summary of declared positions from this discussion shortly. If we've misrepresented your view, please just correct it. Anthony (talk) 04:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

User:QuackGuru

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

The problem is that he immediately deletes all posts from his talk page, which means it's difficult for others to see the pattern of complaints about him. I know editors have broad leeway on their talk pages, but this has reached the point of being disruptive. Looking through the history, [46] there seems to be one warning after another, all removed instantly. Should we require him to leave messages in place for a minimum period—say, two weeks? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, I have left a 3RR note on his talkpage today as he reverted at Jimmy Wales three times without any discussion at all. He just deleted it immediately and left me a template when I had only a single revert to the Jimmy Wales article, clearly misusing the template completely. Off2riorob (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I know that you know that 3RR is a bright line rather than an allowance, so have you reported this editor to the 3RR page? There are folks there who are presumably adept at seeing gaming of the restriction. LHvU (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

He made three reverts without a single word of discussion, and then when I warned him about it he left me a warning, I imagine some administrators would have blocked but I didn't make a report there. I would have immediately if he had reverted after my warning. Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

SV appears to indicate that this is a pattern, and I am suggesting (I was using my LHvU account just above) that such behaviour may get more traction if reported to the 3RR board. As for your example, a single or infrequent incident may not be sufficient to draw a sanction and the removal of a warning is taken as evidence it had been read. The subsequent action of templating you is not appropriate, but again it is more serious if it can be shown as part of a pattern of disruptive/dismissive behaviours (recent, or ongoing per SV's commentary about the block history from 2007 - 09). LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I did prepare a report for 3RR, showing three reverts on the 4th and three on the 6th at Jimmy Wales, but I ended up not posting it. The point about the talk page is that, when you encounter problems with him, you look at his talk page and there's no indication that others are having similar problems, because he blanks after each post. If he were required to leave the posts in place, it might give him pause for thought before causing another editor to feel the same way. And it would make it easier for admins to track just how troublesome he's being. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

There was a recent AN/I complaint from another editor about the talk-page issue (among other things) here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems like an issue to be dealt with via a well-prepared RfC/U. QuackGuru does deal with a large number of COI-laden fringe editors, so it's no wonder they get into disputes. Fences&Windows 22:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

RfC/U would be fine, but I would strongly support a requirement that he/she not delete anything from his talk page in the interim. The latitude given to users in this regard is clearly being abused. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This would seem to be a departure from normal Wikipedia practice. It has long been held that deleting any message from one's own talk page is permitted at any time; a user talk page is intended as a tool for communicating with a user, not as a record of warnings, punishments, or scarlet letters. If a user has a history of disruptive conduct then there are appropriate processes for dealing with that (RfC/U, per F&W, falls into this category, as would reports of recurring edit warring to AN/EW), but demanding that he retain a list of transgressions on his talk page for all to see isn't one of them. +TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any rule that requires either retaining anything in particular on one's talk page (beyond certain notices), nor that the user have an archival process set up. The page's history is effectively the archive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that if we particularly wanted a convenient record, someone could create one out of the history (and perhaps someone might choose to, as an illustration, if another RFC is put in place). But while I'm aware of the extra hassle QG's practice imposes on the editors that are communicating with him, I'm not sure that he's really doing anything "wrong" or that this board should be handling. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It's just that, as you say, talk pages are for communicating, and constantly blanking is hindering that. They're not intended solely for communicating with the editor; it that were the case, we could just use email. There's an assumption of community communication, even if the editor is allowed to control it to a large extent. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Way back when, I was told that just zapping stuff from my talk page was extremely impolite, even though not technically against the rules. It seems that that sentiment has slid quite a bit since then, but it still turns up. Maybe there should be some more formal rules? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The practice used to be (don't know whether it was written down) that you could do what you wanted with your talk page, so long as you weren't removing warnings too quickly that admins might need to see. A point would arrive where that was deemed disruptive, and an admin would arrive to restore them. Over time we've allowed more leeway, but I still think QuackGuru is on the wrong side of wherever the line is, because he effectively has no talk page. You post there, and it disappears, and reconstructing the thing from the history would be a fair bit of work. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been around for about as long as you have, SV, and I don't recall that ever being our usual practice. For as long as I can remember, we've been telling new admins who come to AN/I complaining that their warnings are being erased to quit edit warring on user's talk pages, and accept that the deletion of a message can be considered an acknowledgement that it was read. If an editor doesn't wish to engage in informal dispute resolution on his own talk page, there's no way to compel him to. It's up to the complainant to escalate to a higher level if there are unresolved issues requiring administrator intervention. User talk pages are for communication with that user, not with any hypothetical admins who might happen by in the future. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If user talk pages were only for communication with that user, we wouldn't need them. We could just e-mail instead. The reason people often insist that issues be posted to talk pages, and not privately, is precisely because the community reads and to some extent has a stake in what goes on, which is why we don't delete user talk as a rule. He's not removing his own posts, but other people's. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

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

TAIT, you are describing a fairly recent (past few years or so) development. Further back, users were not allowed to remove warnings from their talkpages. That caused enough useless drama that the practice gradually shifted to the idea that if a user removes a warning, that means they saw the warning, so it can be used against them. So practice in that area has been fluid. Obviously in some cases, keeping the conversations visible for a while helps manage ongoing disruption. So now we're seeing a situation (see the thing with Editor182 last night e.g.) where users can remove notices unless they get a formal restriction to leave the conversations up. An alternative way to manage the disruption would be to ban the user completely, so if they prefer that to getting a talkpage restriction, it can probably be worked out. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that while QuackGuru may technically be allowed to empty his talkpage and respond in edit summaries, it is part of a greater pattern of edit warring, deliberate misunderstanding of others, and POV pushing. We've now been in discussion for >1 week at vertebral artery dissection about how much weight to lend to isolated reports about deaths from chiropractic. I have provided two arguments (both based on WP:WEIGHT) that there reports are too infrequent. QuackGuru has managed not to address these despite repeated requests, and continues to insert "his content", including unrelated article text that was removed for legitimate reasons[47].

I see a general pattern of WP:POINT, and I'm getting a bit weary (on the VAD article) of having to edit under fire. JFW | T@lk 06:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

QG has done this for a long time, and it has the effect of "avoiding the scrutiny of other editors". Recreating the content of his talk page would be a real pain, IOW he's creating an obstruction to the process of figuring out what he's up to, and that's just plain an abuse of the right to delete content on one's talk page. He may have the "right" to do it, but that doesn't make it "right". The talk page is intended for real communication, but that is made impossible when he only responds in short edit summaries that often don't really address the matter, and are definitely not a real conversation, as is necessary for true collaboration. He's not a collaborative editor but a solo loose canon and often makes edits of controversial material that is under discussion, well knowing the discussion isn't finished (because he is making comments). He makes edits and claims "consensus" in the edit summary when no other editor has even hinted that there is a consensus or that the discussion is finished. It's a pattern that's been going on for years. I often stay away from such discussions because I know he can tie us up for literally months on small details. He'll make comments that show he's playing IDHT and he doesn't really respond to other's concerns in a constructive way. I AGF by assuming he's not taking his medicine. That's the BEST interpretation I can give this matter. His block log speaks for itself. He's given an unusually long leash for some reason and it needs to stop. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree on this - every interaction I've had with QuackGuru has been a pure contest of wills. He has a predefined idea of how things should be, and he doesn't respond to comments made by others: he simply repeats his points with an adamant insistence that they are obvious universal truths, and gets progressively more angry if he can't get his way. If wikipedia is serious about being a consensus system, then something has to be done about editors like QG - consensus discussions are almost impossible where he is active on a page.

I don't know what causes these problems. Sometimes I suspect there's an ESL issue - his language structure (on those relatively rare occasions where he types a full sentence) reminds me of some of the speech patterns I've seen in immigrants from eastern Europe - but other times I think it's an intentional tactic (or at least a very deep resistance to accepting any sort of compromise). If it were up to me, I'd suggest mandatory mentorship, because the only way QG is going to get past this is to have someone sit down and teach him the basics of civil, communicative discourse. Is there anyone who would be willing to do that, and any way to convince QG that he needs to accept it? --Ludwigs2 08:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd say the behavioral issues at the mentioned articles are sufficient to justify some sort of administrative action, there's really no need to try to get him on the talk page thing. If it is long-standing policy/practice to let users rule their talk pages as they will, this isn't the forum to try to change that. Tarc (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Only so you know, User_talk:Editor182 has lately been put on a very tight talk page archiving (no blanking) restriction as a condition for unblocking. Admin sanctions like this are ok so long as they can be appealed at ANI. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• I absolutely agree that there are behavioral issues but I don't agree that there is a need to change talk page requirements here; I think it's downright wrong. If you can't communicate with the editor after more than one attempt, then that's what dispute resolution exists for; it's pure laziness if what is happening is that we're looking for ways to avoid it. If what is being alleged is that an editor is removing the original post and just retaining his reply (which could easily mislead users regarding what was originally said - especially if an editor is pretending to summarise what was said), then that's a separate problem altogether, and it's not permissible under policy to begin with. And hypothetically, for dodgy restrictions, you'd better hope that editors under such restrictions don't appeal. Hypothetically, if those restrictions are still in place, it's purely to encourage a new editor to be more responsive; hypothetically, should they dispute it after behaving, they will get assistance to have it overturned through whatever means necessary - and the outcome won't be a mere 'inconvenience' anymore, especially if particular administrators are trying to find ways to unilaterally impose sanctions in a manner that they have previously been warned about. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes, this is why it's so very important to let such an editor know they can always appeal at ANI. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

My point is that the appeal would not be limited to ANI if this has been an issue before - even more so if it was with the same administrator. It's just a hypothetical caution to administrators who are in that position. That it is allowed on the odd occasion does not mean it is acceptable or going to necessarily be OK in the future. I say necessarily OK because I recognise that there are very rare times where circumstances are100% exactly the same. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• • And to address another point that I missed in my above comment, the reason email is not used for general Wikipedia communication is because we have no access whatsoever to those emails - not because of inconvenience. In the case of Wikipedia, we have access to what an user has said by way of the user talk history (especially for discussions which are not visible via archives). I'm surprised that some experienced administrators still don't get that. If that's too difficult, then it simply means you're either too lazy or need to brush up on your skills. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Nonsense. Admins are volunteers, and their time is a limited resource, routinely searching laboriously through a user's talk history in case there's something there they should know is impractical. It is not reasonable to allow a handful of editors to both attain lesser scrutiny and inhibit dispute resolution through excessively rapid removal of talk discussions. Rd232 ^talk 17:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I tend to broadly agree with this. If an editor isn't stirring up many warnings and such, I don't think anyone much cares if they blank their talk page, but when there are many warnings and other worries, I think blanking wastes a lot of time and isn't fair to other volunteer editors. In some ways I guess this can also be taken as a civility thing. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

... and for some periods he couldn't even use the excuse of meaningful edit summaries as responses to the comments he was deleting. See this period, for example. I can see no reason for this, other than being deliberately disruptive. David Biddulph (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

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

• Many editors routinely delete rather than archive, as history is always available, which is not the case with emails, so SV's argument that we might as well email if we don't archive fails. We do not routinely assume bad faith and say it must be because they wish to avoid scrutiny. It is not "'part of a pattern of disruptive behavior" to do something specifically permitted by policy; I am disturbed that there are people voicing such a view; I suggest the entire question of removing posts be taken out of this discussion; while some may find it a bit more tedious to go through history than to go through archives, it is not in any sense a negative thing to do. I refer you to, for example, User talk:Tony Sidaway "A note about archiving" - are we to broaden this discussion to also castigate Tony and others who routinely remove rather than archive? If so, I suggest the debate belongs on the relevant policy page. If not, then cease mentioning it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• User talk blanking is an issue? Really? The history tab for QG's user talk is pretty easy to click and every warning QG has ever received is in plain sight in that history. If QG prefers a blank his user talk page, what's that to us? If there are perceived issues with the user's edits or personal interactions, that's something to discuss. But trying to control how a Wikipedian choses to organize their communications in user space is not, in my opinion, anything more than a needlessly punitive game. jps (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• I don't agree that many editors routinely delete rather than archive.Users are recommended to archive their user talkpages. A minimal number do not archive and when you combine this users non archiving with his immediate removal of any comment placed there you do have an issue especially when there are warnings being added, it is impossible to discuss anything on his userpage, and discussion and being open to discussion is part of the normal, needed ,everyday workings or the wiki, one place it is not available is this users talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• A recommendation is not a command. WP:BLANKING makes it clear in the guideline that users are well-within acceptable practices to remove notices and warnings from their user talk pages. People who have QG in their sights, including you, seem to want to continually approach him on his user talk page with template notices. This is a form of WP:Wikihounding, which is a behavior I have seen you do to me as well (which is why I asked you not to post on my talkpage any more, and I thank you for stopping the problematic behavior). In short, I'd be more willing to accept that this was a problem if someone actually showed some evidence that discussion was necessary on his talkpage. Instead, all I seem to be seeing is people whining about the fact that he doesn't want you guys templating him. If you've got a problem with QG, there are dispute resolution ideas available that include ways to discuss these matters outside of his talkpage. jps (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• I just read this and I didn't realize what it was about as you didn't provide any links and I didn't recognize you, but its User:ScienceApologist, you changed your name. Here is a link to the issue you are referring to for the log in case anyone wonders in future. Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If there's been wikihounding of QG, that should also be dealt with. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There have been circa 40 messages on QG's talk page since the beginning of November (roughly one a day), on a variety of issues, most by Ocaasi, but all told from 6 or 7 different editors. each message was either a request for discussion, a notification of some proceeding, or a plea to refrain from aggressive editing behavior (e.g. blanket reverts). Each was deleted without comment, or with some dismissive edit summary (he even took to writing his edit summaries upside-down and backwards at one point - neat css trick, I suppose). That does not strike me as wiki-hounding, but rather as fairly desperate attempts to get an editor to communicate and cooperate. please note for comparison that I got over 30 posts to my talk page over a 2-day period around the 25th of October (almost 60 posts over that week), and that was not considered wiki-hounding when I took the matter to ANI.

At any rate, this discussion has gotten sidetracked. I'm tired of QG's behavior, so the proper approach now is to open an RFC/U and settle this issue there. I don't know the procedure for doing that, so if someone wants to point me in the right direction 'll get on it, or if someone starts the proceedings themselves I will second it gladly. leave a note in my talk (I promise not to delete it. ) --Ludwigs2 18:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll point out, so it doesn't get forgotten, that there was also this recent WQA thread about QuackGuru, that also recommended an RfC/U. As for RfC/U itself, the information on it is here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The difficulty now is that, because he blanks his talk page after each edit, it'll take some work to reconstruct who's been complaining about what, so that a comprehensive RfC can be posted. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

well, I always believe that it's better to start small on things like this - rather than overwhelming people with uber-comprehensive diffs just give a good overview with a small selection of appropriate examples. it can be added to as time goes on, if needed. Let me read up on the process and see if I can get something working later today. --Ludwigs2 18:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've been going over the RfC/U material, and I am beginning to think that it is not really worth the effort. QuackGuru did not respond to the previous RfC/U on him in 2007 (he did not post to the page at all), he did not respond to the Wikiquette I opened about him a couple of months ago, and neither case seems to have had any impact on his behavior. I see no reason to believe that he will deign to respond to a second RfC/U. Since I have no interest in building a new discussion just to be ignored by the person being discussed, I think it will be more effective to start up a community ban discussion, which (one assumes) will at least get his attention enough to guarantee his participation. I assume it would be best to start that over at wp:AN, so unless there are any objections to my starting that proceeding over the next couple of hours, I will do that there. --Ludwigs2 18:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

ok, I've started a community ban request, here. feel free to add to it or comment as you like. I'll leave him a notification now. --Ludwigs2 02:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk page archiving

• Some editing that is normally allowed may be restricted if the editing causes disruption on Wikipedia. We recently had a discussion where a user was restricted from blanking their talk page. I believe such a restriction might be appropriate here. If the blanking is being done to frustrate accountability, to obfuscate evidence of wrongdoing, to antagonize other users, or to dodge blocks by making it hard to see an accumulation of warnings, those may be valid grounds. Rather than holding a long talk-shop RFC on this subject, which is already pretty obvious, could somebody uninvolved in conflicts with the user please check their talk page history and give a summary of what they see? Jehochman ^Talk 18:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I've asked nicely here. Let's wait for a response. Jehochman ^Talk 19:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Extremely well put, Jehochman. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• I see the editor reverting all posts, even nice ones. My preliminary look shows that he was previously topic banned from Chiropractic articles and there was some activity in regards to Pseudoscience. The block log speaks for itself. He doesn't seem to like having content disputes discussed in his user talk. Though this has also meant that warnings and concerns (which there are a lot of) have also been reverted. I don't agree that you should be skipping dispute resolution; resolving the allegations of POV pushing are more important than how convenient it is to access talk page records. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• It's pretty simple. The editor appears to be behaving disruptively, getting into disputes and refusing to carry on civil discussions. Ignoring warnings. Hiding warnings in an effort to muddy the view. This points to a lengthy or permanent block for disruptive editing, if all else fails. There have been plenty of warnings and prior blocks. WP:BURO. It does not seem that the facts of the matter are in dispute, so I don't see the need for dispute resolution. I see the need for plain talk, possibly backed up with editing restrictions. Jehochman ^Talk 19:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• (after ec) On the contrary; discussing content disputes should properly be carried out on the appropriate article talk page in preference to user talk; and if he's removing "even nice (posts) its clear its how he cleans up his talk page; if here were "hiding warnings" he'd be leaving the nice ones and removing the warnings, which by the way I have also seen and which is also allowable. None of this is blockworthy or even warning-worthy. If he fails to discuss edits on article talk pages, if he edit wars, those are indeed warning and or block worthy items, but I am deeply distressed to see his method of handling his talk page posts being discussed as a problem when it is so clearly within policy. Again I ask, are you going to issue a long block to Tony Sideaway and others who also remove "all posts, even nice ones"? Is this supported in policy? No, and no. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• KC, I beg to differ. You reveal that you haven't been involved with QG lately and therefore you are speaking from ignorance. Your intentions are good, but in this case are misguided and not really addressing the concerns that have been mentioned. It's nice to speak of hypotheticals and not changing the way we do things, but the realities right now demand an exception be made to stop his disruptions. Topic bans on a number of articles should be made, and a (temporary?) ban against blanking his talk page for a period of time, including complete removal of its history, which he frequently has done. He runs in circles on article talk pages. Discussion there doesn't help because he just makes edits in spite of objections and claims consensus where there is none and uses reverting all the time. Appeals and warnings on his talk page (since nothing works on article talk pages) are deleted with no visible change in his behavior. His block log is huge, but his methods of disruption are so complicated that it's often hard to pin him down to a particularly grossly blockable offense, but his behavior is still very disruptive and his lack of communication removes an important possibility for helping him and dealing with him. I suggest you start editing and discussing on those pages for awhile and you'll see what's happening. THEN you'll be able to speak with more authority. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Two things: I'm worried about a slippery slope, and disagree that we must make an exception - indeed, I find exceptions of convenience are the most dangerous; none of his other actions, which are indeed of concern and of which you may call me as ignorant as you like have any bearing on this trend towards becoming more controlling as regards user talk pages; and Removal of his history? He's not an admin, how was this accomplished? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oops! It's his user page, not his talk page, that gets the history scrubbed regularly by admins. I'll strike that above. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Ah, thanks, that makes more sense now. I knew I must be missing something. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• I find that collaborating with QG is easier in the classical wiki sense. He makes a lot of edits to article space. Some of these edits get reverted and sometimes he reverts. I have not had a problem getting to a consensus with him when we've disagreed (and normally we get to a consensus with a lot less hemming and hawing than is typical of Wikipedia's interminable discussions — a characteristic of QG's style that I actually find admirable). jps (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• My polite request is still sitting there. Let's see what the response will be. Jehochman ^Talk 19:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• A number of users who've been here for long enough seem to take heed of RfC/Us - such users don't pay as much regard to comments made individually at various points in time, but do sometimes pay attention to the Community's calls in DR (aka a RfC/U). It may turn out that he isn't responsive to the concerns, it may turn out that he is; I think this talk page thing is the least serious issue, and when confronted about each of the major issues and the views of the Community, at least we know exactly what has prompted the need for sanctions which are a bit more...final...if it comes to that. It also gives the Community the opportunity to endorse the parts which are respected, OK or constructive contributions, while it gives it the opportunity to specify each of the present issues - his not so constructive contributions at this point in time. It also gives him the ability to supply evidence of hounding if it is ongoing. We're not suggesting process for the sake of process when dispute resolution was enacted, or a process that should be skipped; we're suggesting resolving issues through the means available and if all else fails, involuntary outcomes or arbitration. If an editor has been here for this long and if there are such issues, and a RfC/U has not been filed, then that needs to be addressed - that will be the record. If he doesn't respond in the way you're hoping and then you do something stupid.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• This discussion happens to be a part of DR.... Unfortunately a community wide RfC/U would be even more disruptive and timewasting and would only bring even more uninvolved individuals who would make more uninformed comments based on hypotheticals and policies, but not his actual behavior, as we've already seen in this thread. It is the involved editors who know what's going on. All we need is for a courageous admin to take action. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/QuackGuru was back in 2007; it would have to be Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/QuackGuru 2. The context of the previous RFC/U was very different, but the overall feel is familiar. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• I blank my talk page after I receive a message and I would like to explain why. There are many reasons, actually. First, for context, I hate having a talk page. I recognize that it is a needed feature, but 90% of the messages are just a complete waste of time. Bogus warnings, false accusations, vandalism, or duplication or notifications of article talk discussions that I already have watchlisted. And I particularly hate the intrusive notification of your new message. It is like a ringing telephone - and I have the ringers turned off most of the time at my house. I am not one of Pavlov's dogs. OK more specifically, I blank my talk page

1. so that the messenger will know I saw their message

2. so I won't have to keep looking at it and keep investing energy in something from the past. I am here in an effort to improve the encyclopedia generally and individual articles in particular. The place to discuss things is in article talk pages or wikipedia project pages, unless the subject of the discussion is the editor.

3. To avoid wikidrama. Every message is treated the same - it's reverted. No possibility of drama. Look, I did the whole wikidrama thing and it sucks. My goal now is dispassionate editing.

4. I am not here for social networking. The whole talk page back and forth barnstar social networking side of wikipedia is something that holds no interest for me.

So please, if the editor in question is being disruptive somewhere, sanction for that, but not for blanking his talk page, which is clearly allowed under our current policies. Dlabtot (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand the issue here. Technically it isn't the blanking that's the primary issue, but that the blanking is part of his pattern of disruption, IOW he uses it in a disruptive manner. THAT'S why we even mention it. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

To illustrate, the use of a broom is usually a good thing and allowed, but if it is frequently used as a weapon, the user may be requested or required to stop wielding the broom. That's the problem here. QG is misusing an otherwise neutral right. That's disruptive. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

While I would generally agree that a user should be allowed to remove material from the user's own talkpage, in this case I agree with others above who argue against blanking without archiving. Sifting through page history and various diffs can be an inordinate burden, not just an inconvenience. Please correct me if I'm wrong: in some responses above there seems to be a basic misunderstanding of what User Talk is for, perhaps out of ownership issues arising from common/accepted usage. The guidelines for User talk page describe it well enough as "a way of helping other editors to interact with and understand those with whom they are working" -- therefore, "it is a mistake to think of user pages as a homepage." Also from User talk page # Blanking: "There is no need to keep [comments, notices, etc] on display and usually users should not be forced to do so." [my emphasis in bold] As it stands now the guideline allows for exception so why not exercise that in this case? -PrBeacon (talk) 07:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I must agree with Dlabtot here. Doing something well within policy cannot be "part of a pattern of disruption" as following policy is not disruptive. The history is there; if we sanction any editor for blanking we must therefore change policy or we are guilty of capriciously ignoring policy when convenient to suit ourselves and our convenience. I realize you disagree; my view remains firm, however. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that we need to have much stronger evidence that the talk page blanking is part of the problem than what is presented here if we are to claim that there is an exception to usual Wikipedia practice. "It makes it hard for those of us who want to see QG sanctioned to convince the uninvolved administrators he's a bad egg when he maintains a scrupulously clean talk page." seems like a very poor argument. If you want to convince others that there is a problem, link to diffs. "I want it to be easier to visually show everybody how many notices he's gotten." is not a motivation, stated or unstated, we should even give the impression of accommodating. jps (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with QG blanking his talk page. I also understand his frustration when questionable sources are used. Am patrolling some of the same lemmata as QuackGuru and his reverts have been appropriate. Had he not made them, I would have. Chartinael (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk page blanking can't possibly be an issue here, because even I, having encountered QG just a few times, know very well what the problems with this editor is. I have to say that I don't disagree with many of the points he makes, but I do see that he sometimes irritates other users in the way he goes about defending his points. Count Iblis (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Unresponsiveness of QuackGuru

Even though SlimVirgin notified QG of this thread, he is demonstrating his lack of willingness to communicate about a problem which he knows is bothering many editors. His silence here, while he has continued to edit elsewhere, speaks volumes. This is quite the very literal demonstration of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

His silence while continuing to edit could just be evidence that he's mulling over his options. WP:AGF, please. jps (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

At least he hasn't removed the last few posts from his talk page, so there may be progress. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That just means he's being careful because he's under observation. That's typical and doesn't indicate any improvement, but rather sneakiness. Not long after the ruckus is over he'll be back at the same behaviors. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

IPA for Robin Thicke

• Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Even though I have explained over and over that his IPA for the article Robin Thicke is incorrect, why it is incorrect, and tried to compromise, this user keeps using incorrect IPA. See also our discussion on his talk page. (I'm sorry, but I don't understand how to notice him of this discussion.) Aikclaes (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Thanks, I will do this. Sorry for using the term vandalism incorrectly. Aikclaes (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

unsigned comment added by Aikclaes (talk • contribs) 06:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

N.B. the user has now been informed of the discussion.--Korruski^Talk 23:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I came here as we are having an argument for a while me and Kwami, but though Kwami called me or my arguments all sorts of names he did not bully me, which other administrators have done in similar circumstances. This comment is here for what ever it is worth, Aikclaes did he issue threats of blocks, other administrators are prone to do that, Kwami has not done that once to me, you are lucky to have him in the ring, you could have worse opponents, I have not looked at the issue, will you please come up with diffs.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Aparently others have had a different experience[48].Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There does not appear to be any basis for administrator intervention here. User talk:Kwamikagami#IPA for Thicke shows that Aikclaes has tried to convince Kwami that their change to the IPA at Robin Thicke is not appropriate, but Kwami has replied very politely and in extreme detail, and the discussion is a model of good technique. I have no opinion on what the correct IPA is, but Kwami spends a lot of time doing this work and in the absence of any reason to believe otherwise, it is likely that Kwami's choice is correct, or at least, not wrong. Presumably somewhere like WT:IPA for English would be the next step, in order to obtain more IPA opinions. Johnuniq (talk) 07:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

you called him a retard thats the problem, it was uncivil you should have stopped and went to the talkpage -Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There are incivility concerns, and I have spoken to the contributor about that. However, the incident occurred before your final warning. While the tone following that final warning still could use improvement, the "retard" comment has not been repeated. I don't think a block would be appropriate. In terms of edit warring, it's hard to see what's going on, since Mercy has been reverting without comment, but now that you've opened a discussion at the talk page perhaps conversation will follow, if the IP's source is for some reason in dispute. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

ok but if you read the edit summaries, 70.127 has insulted mercy in all his edit summaries, and then he taunted him on his talk page saying he couldn't block, but we will wait and see how things go Moonriddengirl --Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Since Mercy has again reverted without explanation, here, I've made sure that s/he is aware of this thread and asked for participation either at the article's talk page or here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

THE ANONYMOUS user is trying to play fool with the rest of us here: This matter is not about when clemency was or was not granted, but about uncivility by the anonymous user. An encyclopedia cannot be built if you are dealing with uncivil people, as the anonymouns user has demonstrated to be. The sockpuppet anonymous user (first anonymous at 72.186.98.71 and then annonymous at 70.127.202.197) violated Wikipedia WP:CIVILITY policy. My reverts violated no policy.

The history of violations by this annonymous user (who may quite well be a sockpuppet of a real registered user as well) goes like this:

72.186.98.71 at "White Eagle (robbery)":

"You're a moron" --- HERE

"You're an idiot" --- HERE

"You're an idiot", again --- HERE

72.186.98.71, then showed up as 70.127.202.197 (locations 12 mi away from each other) at "Oscar López Rivera" as follows:

"I already did[,] you moronic radical twit" --- HHERE

"Here's your sources, you radical nutcase" --- HHERE

"Not gonna happen, retard." --- HHERE

"You are a major retard." --- HHERE

The anonymous user continued the offensive, personal attacks even after I contacted user at the anonymous page in question HERE. The user changed IP addresses immediately after this to the 70.127.202.197 address and has not abandoned that IP address since.

If we check the dates and times of the above edits, the offenses and personal attacks had no other intention than to disrupt the harmonious building of the encyclopedia. The attacks were deliberate, premeditated, repeated and, to this moment, unremorseful. They harmed the building of the encyclopedia by being disruptive as they were also intended to garnish moments of glory and delight for the offending user at the expense of the intention of producing personal harm. This anonymous user should not be allowed such significant levels of disruption to the encyclopedia.

The user should not only be blocked at the 2 IP addresses, but the 2 articles in question should be locked until such time as civil editors can look into the validity of the anonymous user's alleged corrections of fact. A 30-day lock should be granted given the current and upcoming holidays.

Again, the anonyoums user is trying to play fool with the rest of us here: This is not a matter of the article having an error of fact on the date of the presidential clemency; this is about uncivility by the anonymous user, and we should not lket the user fool us into thinking this is about anything else but that. An encyclopedia cannot be built if anonymous users are holding a gun to your head while arguing about an alleged matter of fact. The actions of the anonymous user are a violation of policy, and it should be dealt with accordingly: and prevent further changes to the article by anyone who is not a registered user.

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Civility is important, but we have processes for handling problems with it. If somebody is aggressive in a way that you think is detrimental to the project, you need to seek assistance, per WP:NPA. Blanket reversions of unblocked contributors because you find them incivil is a kind of vigilante justice that's not supported by any policy. There's no doubt that this IP's behavior has crossed the line, particularly as you point out that it has persisted across two IPs. Blocks are not punative, but preventative, however. If the behavior continues, a block will be certainly be forthcoming. But there is no exception for reverting rude people at Wikipedia:Edit warring. It's also important to provide an accurate edit summary. If you haven't looked into the content, your edit summary should make that clear, rather than implying that yours was the "last good version." And you have now not only reverted the IP, but reverted this edit by presumably an uninvolved editor (User:Quazgaa) with a summary reading, "Issues regarding this article are under currently discussion at the ANI board." The article isn't locked. Is there substantive reason to revert User:Quazgaa? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The short answer is "NO", and I went back into the article to undo my revert of Quazgaa's edits but I see the anonymous user in question had already reverted them - as well as his own. The longer answer is that my intention was not to revert Quazgaa: I was reverting the Anonymous User's comments when I got an Edit Conflict, due to Quazgaa's concurrent edit. Thus I reverted both - it seemed like the right thing to do at the moment, and as a note to Quazgaa and any potential future editors I also entered, at the time of my double undo, a note into the article's Talk Page HERE that the matter was being discussed in this forum, and hopefully put on hold other editors' potential changes. I don't claim to be perfect, and maybe some might consider my double undo wrongful action, but the record shows that the anonymous user started the controversy and continues, still unremoseful, to disrupt the encyclopedia by dragging additional Wikipedia resources into something that shouldn't have been. We cannot build an encyclopedia when an editor insists in having his persistent and unremoseful uncivility condoned by this forum. This is disruptive. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Nobody is condoning the behavior. It was flatly, unacceptably incivil. There's no justification for speaking to others that way on Wikipedia, and if it continues there will certainly be sanctions. That said, it is best to deal with incivility through the means set out at WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

What exactly, then, are we in this forum for? The Anonymous user has already been proven to have engaged in unprovoked, intentional, repeated, and flagrant personal attacks. He's also shown he is not willing to work with everyone else going forward - never mind rectify his past wrongdoings. WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL were both openly violated by a user whose contributions have been Zero, and whose track record HERE has been nothing but to inflict damage and disrupt the encyclopedia every time he shown up. I have made my wishes clear and they do not conflict with policy. You seem to be best versed with WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL; please initiate, then, the necessary action to deal with this matter. Thanks. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message. (crossed out by Mercy11 in favor of my message below to the Anonymous User.)

This is ridiculous. The article makes it clear that Clinton made the clemency offer in AUGUST 1999, NOT September 1999. It also makes it clear that Oscar refused the clemency offer. Despite this, Mercy11 ignores the source and continues to insist that the offer was made in September 1999 and that Oscar was not even offered clemency. My behavior is not polite but that doesn't give Mercy11 the right to ignore the fact that the article proves that clemency was offered in August, NOT September and that Oscar WAS offered clemency. --70.127.202.197 (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Once again, please read this link, Moonriddengirl and Mercy11.

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

Sorry I couldn't get here earlier, It seems Both parties are involved in edit warring and are to blame, Mercy shouldn't have edit warred neither should have the IP even though your edit is correct you don't edit war to get it kept. the IP is also to blame for incivil behaviour even though you stopped when I warned you, you haven't apologised to Mercy and you adamently have refused to when asked --Lerdthenerd (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Lerdthenerd is quite right about edit warring, 70.127.202.197. If somebody reverts your improvements to the article, you should follow the procedure at dispute resolution. It may seem to add a bit of extra headache, but as this shows in the long run it has the potential to save quite a bit more. It's worth taking the time to discuss differences to avoid larger distractions. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• TO THE Anonymous User: "My behavior is not polite" and "Please" go a lot further in this place that the other 4-letter words. That article and the other 13, plus the 4 or so individuals associated with the Wells Fargo robbery need updates and your sources were useful. If you are willing to contribute without attacking me personally and otherwise following policy, I am willing to forget about the whole thing. I await your response.My name is Mercy11 (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Die4Dixie requesting to return

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Die4Dixie has withdrawn his request.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

---

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

In their request, D4D says: "I shall not engage in the behavior that lead to that decision." Given the nature of the behavior, I don't think that's sufficient. I'd like to see some acknowledgement from this editor that they understand why the community found their behavior repugnant, and that they agree with that assessment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

More information needed. The user should first explain in some detail what topics they are going to edit and what improvements they can make to our articles. Should they then regress to any prior problems, they would be swiftly reblocked. Jehochman ^Talk 14:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I opposed the ban, as you may recall. However, I agree with Ken. More info needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Absolutely not - This editor's history shows a well-established tendency to engage in not just tendentious editing and edit warring, but also ventures well into the realm of antisemitism or some kind of anti-Jewish paranoia where he thinks Jewish wikipedians are conspiring against him. This is well-documented in his banning discussion and the last thing we need are more agenda pushers and tendentious editors, least of all those who believe in Jewish conspiracies. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with Ken normally I treat all people who tread the fine line between general prattishness and abhorrent racial agenda with equal disdain, but I would like to see if Dixie knows what the problem is. "I shall not engage in the behavior that lead to that decision" sounds a bit like "I sincerely regret that your son/husband/father/other was killed/wounded/reported missing in action." Acknowledge it a bit. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Any point in considering whether to replace the block with a ban on editing in the area that got them in trouble (race/ethnicity)? A good test of whether or not an editor is an incorrigible miscreant or wayward encyclopedian might be whether they can edit productively on bridges or barbie dolls for a time. Skomorokh 15:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. Let's do a live fire test on this one. If he screws up, we might as well know it early. It is his burden to show he can contribute productively to the project.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

(threadjack) As a means of judging character, I am all for personal responsibility, but from a project perspective I wonder if such live fire tests accomplish much other than editors in body bags. A lot of editors have push-button issues around which they find it very difficult to stay cool and within socially accepted norms of behaviour, and not all have the self-control to avoid them; this does not imply their contributions can be of no use for the project. Skomorokh 15:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you. Perhaps I should have said that we have limited supervisory resources for repentant editors. We do sometimes go to great lengths to rehabilitate useful editors, but Die4Dixie, despite his notoriety, has yet to show he can so much for us that it is worth spending our limited time and resources on a topic ban (which must be enforced), a mentor perhaps. Our greatest resource is the time people expend here. D4D has to show he's worth it, or leave us again.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting around the clock surveillance and dedicated mentors, just a promise from D4D to avoid fringe politics/race which we could stick at WP:SANCTIONLOG and at the top of his user talk page. If the promise is broken to any significant extent someone is likely to notice. I only bring it up because he mentions on his talkpage "I hope to...work in translations from Spanish to English, little "c" Latin American issues, and linguistics. I would avoid the Holocaust, since I lack any finesse to deal with it." To which, in light of his reasonable attitude since being banned I'd respond "sure, have some WP:ROPE". Skomorokh 15:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Very well, that's fine then.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Absolutely not per Burpelson AFB. --John (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I've been in frequent communication with D4D, and I'll take the responsibility of mentoring, including slapping him with fish, or, if necessary, two by fours, if he gets out of line. (He's agreed to this as well.) I'd like him to have one more chance; I think he's a good content contributor and (when he can keep his temper in check) a net positive to Wikipedia. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  It is indeed better to let the editor return under watch than to have them socking and causing further troubles. What sorts of articles would the editor like to contribute to? What are they interested in editing? Hopefully things not related to race and religion, such as hobbies, geography, culture, sports. Jehochman ^Talk 15:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Added at 16:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC) for clarity.

• Support (with mentoring) - I've locked horns with D4D in the past, but one year is a long time and the standard offer seems appropriate. The offer of mentoring by Jpgordon removes any doubts I might have. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Oh dear. The email to Jehochman has immediately restored those niggling doubts I had. With careful mentoring from Jpgordon, it is possible that D4D can be productive; however, I no longer have enough faith to actively support this return to the community. Perhaps more time in the sin bin is necessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support (with mentoring). Offer by a very capable admin dispels doubts for me.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Very weak support - on the back of jpgordon's mentoring offer and comments. Off2riorob (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support per jpgordon's mentoring offer.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • OpposeNeutral per the email he sent to Jehochman. Not impressed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Doubting - I just received an unimpressive email from Die4Dixie. This person is not ready to be involved in an online collaborative project. Jehochman ^Talk 16:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  Please read this entire discussion before posting a vote. Jehochman ^Talk 16:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  I've posted a response to the email. Let's see how D4D responds. Jehochman ^Talk 16:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Weak support I would oppose this request vehemently in other circumstances (not only because of aforementioned mail to Jehochman) but jpgordon is both capable and experienced enough that I trust their judgment in this case. But even with such an offer, it's a really close call and I can really understand anyone opposing this request. Regards SoWhy 16:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  I was willing to give this editor a second chance, until he sent me a message that assumed bad faith. To be clear, it was not an inappropriate message, just an unimpressive one. A big part of the original problem with this editor was that he launched an unfounded attack on Slrubenstein. We don't need users who assume that editors with Jewish sounding names are out to get them. Of course if this editor returns, I am going to watch to make sure they don't repeat what got them blocked and banned in the first place. Jehochman ^Talk 16:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  Maybe it's just me, but things are still not clear to me. If what D4D posted is accurate, it seems there's a bit of stress and paranoia, but it doesn't have much to do with how your name sounds or whether one is Jewish or not. Instead, it seems it has to do with so-called accusations of socking you made and the validity of those accusations; what about it is 'unimpressive'? I'm not seeing the actual assumption of bad faith.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  What Ncmvocalist said. My interpretation of that email (if it was the same as posted on their talk page) was that it resulted from things you have said, not that you might be and unless you have some other evidence that this interpretation that Ncm and I have is incorrect, I will assume my interpretation as in dubio pro reo. I would not tolerate any racist or antisemitic remarks if they are made but if it's unclear, I will AGF that they were not made or at least not intended to be interpreted that way. Regards SoWhy 23:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• I am aware of the concerns that led to this user's community ban, and I supported that ban 100%. If this were a simple appeal for a second chance, I'd be extremely hesitant, based on how things went last time around. However, I'm confident that jpgordon isn't going to stand for any nonsense, and he's agreed to take responsibility for his mentoring. If someone's been banned for quite some time, expresses a desire to start editing again, and an established, upstanding editor is willing to take responsibility for monitoring his return to Wikipedia, then I'm OK with that. MastCell ^Talk 16:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral. I'm all for believing that people can learn and change for the better, but I just can't see this ending well. Nevertheless, if jpgordon is willing to bear the cross of giving it a go, I'm not opposed. Rd232 ^talk 16:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• I would be strongly against this were it not for jpgordon's willingness to mentor. However, I very much trust jpgordon's judgment, so I'll support. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• I don't see what's wrong with the email; I think it's pretty clear that it was a misunderstanding of what Jehochman was talking about, and D4D is a bit paranoid thinking that Jeh meant actual hobbies, geography, etc. (personal details) rather than what sort of articles. Given that I've seen some of the positive results from Jpgordon's mentoring in the past, I'm inclined to support. I'm going to hold off in case I've missed anything though in regards to the email etc. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Well, it was a bit like seeing the future unveiling and shooting himself in the foot...I am extremely doubtful about Jpgordon's offer, but if he is prepared to make it then, good luck to him, I get the feeling he is going to need it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose This editor has strong views on various issues, and his return would probably lead to more conflict. TFD (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  At most once, for what it's worth. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Agree with TFD. Not worth it. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  Switching to tentative support (per email from d4d and baseball bugs' tentative support below). --RegentsPark (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Tentative support Several good admins here have indicated they will keep an eagle eye on this guy (who has been blocked for a year now) and send him back to his cell if he returns to his previous approach. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Suggestion - Can we give D4D an article or a few to work on in their userspace and see if they can make suitable improvements? If so, the ban could be dropped and the drafts copied or moved to mainspace. Constructive editing would be impressive. If my presence causes this user stress, I am perfectly happy to ignore, as long as they don't show up at the honeypot articles on my watchlist causing trouble. This discussion is a bit prejudiced. Perhaps a few weeks of userspace editing, and then restart would be best. Jehochman ^Talk 17:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Good idea, although I would think someone in his situation would welcome constant monitoring. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I reminded myself of the discussion linked by Jehochman in which I was involved. It concerned baiting Slrubenstein with a a lurid discussion about whether one of the corpses in a horrific image from a concentration camp was circumcised or not. I agree with MastCell that it would be hard to find a better mentor than Jpgordon. As others have said, he would have to be constantly monitored. But is wikipedia really some kind of reform school? Mathsci (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• reply - it might not be a dreform school but its not a death camp either. people dont "necessarily" have to be exiled for life for every minor infraciton. if the community decides to giv ehim a second chance, thats not necessarily a bad idea. personally, i dont think its worth the effort, but if a respected user like jpgordon or jehochman are willing to work with this guy to rehablilitate him as an editor then having him here fighting the good fight can be definitely worth the small effort of restoring him. User:Smith Jones 18:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see that this was a "minor infraction"; and it's probably best not to talk about "death camps" in this particular context. Mathsci (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• There could be a practical reason for the concentration camp images, which would be to address the question of whether the victims were Jewish or not. Even assuming totally good faith (which may well not be the case), that would amount to "original research". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Moot now since, from what has been written below, D4D has withdrawn this request. Mathsci (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - at the risk of sounding draconian, why on earth would we want him back? He's caused enough problems, he offers nothing substantial - he does not, for example, write even as well as your average editor; he's shown no particular ability to locate and vet sources, he's certainly shown no desire or skill at resolving disputes; in short, he's all negative and no positive. His last visit here was filled with strife, drama, and NPA violations. I don't see that we should consider allowing him back without extensive assurances of a changed heart. If opinion is otherwise, however, I suggest mentoring and swift judgment if he has not, indeed, changed his approach. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. KC offers a good précis, just above. D4D made a fair number of appalling antisemitic comments. Off-the cuff I recall D4D urging editors to zoom in on images of corpses to examine them for signs of foreskins, which I called trolling 101. I remain convinced that this user is primarily intent on being a troll. Also, I don't support WP:OFFER absent significant work on another WMF project. Too many see it as a get-out-of-jail-free card after six months of waiting for the community to forget the details. nb: I would support a brief unblock solely for the purpose of unifying their account: sulutil:Die4Dixie. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  I've received an email from D4D re my above comment. He indicates an intent to work on another WMF project for the next six months and that, by 'acknowledging' his email, I may comment that he's withdrawing his request. He should post that himself to his talk.

  I see that WP:OFFER is at MfD; the offer is a good concept, but it is often inappropriately sought. I've notified Durova (the author) and added a bit about this to the offer. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The murderous puppy above sums up my feelings nicely, and like Jack I'd like to see work on another Wikimedia Foundation project. AniMate 19:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jehochman's indications that the email sent to him does not indicate that he intends to work well with others. I am normally quite lenient on allowing blocked users to return, given that they show adequate understanding of the problems they caused and intent to change their behavior. The gist that Jehochman has indicated of his communications with the user in question does not instill confidence in me that this would get any better if he were unblocked. --Jayron32 21:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I believe in second chances.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - that was about a year ago, let's give em' another chance, People do change. ya know? - Dwayne was here! ♫ 23:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposed mentorship is certainly a good thing, but D4D has done nothing to suggest that he understands the very good reasons he was banned in the first place. I'm not suggesting he don sackcloth and ashes, just that he says something like, "I said this, and I was wrong, and I won't do it again." PhGustaf (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The contents of his e-mail to Jehochman do not exactly inspire confidence, although it might just be a clumsy way of asking for an interaction ban. But my "tentative support" is getting more and more tentative. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Becoming practically eleventative at this point? HalfShadow 23:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Or even twelvetive. If it gets to thirteentive, SELL! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
        • 13tative sounds like bad luck to me. PhGustaf (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I believe in second chances too, but I doubt if an editor capable of this is able to reform. (Translation: "In fact, I am very tired of your bullshit. It’s a pity that the glorious operation (context: to kill leftists in Latin America) was not more successful. If that was the case, we wouldn’t be having this revolting conversation. It's pity that your mother was not one of the disappeared"). Black Kite (t) (c) 23:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • If that translation is correct, and there are no remarkable extenuating circumstances, a reasonable response to his request might be, "Fuck him, and throw him to the wolves." PhGustaf (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Que se joda, y echarlo a los lobos? HalfShadow 00:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• - Well. there is clearly no consensus to unblock and I have seen this a fair bit recently, IMO we should be more honest with users that are indefinitely blocked/banned and delete the WP:Standard offer as it is not well supported and gives them pointless hope and results in them all to often being publicly hauled over the coals and rejected again. Off2riorob (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, Standard Offer still applies to this user, and will always apply. I for one, and I suspect many (but not all) users above are more interested in evidence of his behavior going forward than in his past problems. I have, and would again, support unblocking users who display evidence, in their requests to be unblocked and in their behavior while they are blocked, that they are capable of playing by the rules, and behaving appropriately to the standards of this project. The fact is that this user, is right now, displaying behavior (as evidenced by his communications with Jehochman) which is problematic, and is also lacking any evidence that he will change. Show me this user again in a few months, with new evidence of an intent to change to proper behaviors, and I would support their return. --Jayron32 00:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
    • You suggest he comes back in another few months for another public humiliation on the highest profile noticeboard on the wikipedia. Standard offer is not supported and it is doing nothing but giving him false hope and encouraging him to think he has any chance at all, and all he gets it his history displayed again here, the essay is not supported in reality as I have seen it in action over the last year and it just serves to embarrass and demean blocked and banned users that continue to want to contribute, better to be honest with them. MFD here Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Standard_offer - Off2riorob (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I sometimes say that a user could demonstrate some good faith by writing some editing suggestions on his talk page, and let other editors judge their merit and (if appropriate) add them to an article. That sounds a bit like "editing by proxy" except it's out in the open, and no one is compelled to do anything with the proposed edits. But it could be a good barometer of a user's current mindset about wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Jayron32, seeing you seem to think there is behavior problems from D4D's communication, would you care to elaborate? You can't keep pushing it onto Jonathon to explain when he's not responding and the alleged problematic email has been posted on-wiki, and both Jehochman and Die4Dixie appear to have resolved their misunderstanding in the same venue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

As a procedural point (responding mostly to Off2riorob), banned or long-term blocked editors who would prefer not to have their editing history detailed on ANI have an alternative route to review of the bans by e-mailed request to the Arbitration Committee. (I'm not commenting on the request in this case.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, thank you Brad, that is perhaps the route we should be directing them towards in their best interests. An independent review board. At least we shouldn't be giving them the idea and false hope that six months with no socking and a good faith request is going to result in anything apart from review of your blocking reasons and further rejection on the highest profile most publicized noticeboard on Wikipedia.Off2riorob (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

i agree with Off2riorob. we get tehse unblock requests frequently and in most cases, regardles sof th e outcome, they basically have to relive all of their past mistakes in humiliating detail and are basically demonzied repeatedly as Nazis, racists, pedophiles, whatever insults anyone can make up to throw at them, and then their request is denied in such a way that makes it seem as if it was not only a bad idea but a deliberate attempt at distruption. User:Smith Jones 03:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Also note that some of the past editing history has to be brought up because not everyone involved in the discussion was paying attention to user XYZ when he or she got banned in the first place. Otherwise the discussion would consist of comments like "well I can't support an unblock but I'm not at liberty to say why" and "well I don't remember or care to look up why they were blocked so oppose/support". As bad as unblock discussions can get, that kind of discussion is worse. Another point to make is that most of the time editors do not get community banned for being saints. We do in fact get people whose past deeds are not exactly good and for whom a retelling of the deeds would seem like an unpleasant experience. In my opinion, that's tough ducks. They caused the original problems and they don't get to ignore them when an unblock request comes up. Protonk (talk) 05:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

'Oppose- I remember the discussion that got him banned, and I don't believe blatant racism can be cured in a year. The community is better off without him. Heiro 03:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support I think Die4Dixie should be allowed to edit again. But I hope she understands that her behavior is under a microscope; it'll be one strike and you're out. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• SupportBeing a blatant racist should not prevent someone from editing. As long as they follow the standards in place it might even be a good thing. A good amount of time off for being disruptive might equal a good lesson so try it out.Cptnono (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose An editor, who makes antisemitic comments or any racist comments for that matter should not edit wikipedia.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Unless and until he understands why we don't look down on n*****s, k***s, w**s, and g******s, he should not be allowed to return. Racism of any sort is by its very nature incompatible with a project that is edited by those of various racial backgrounds. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 06:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Actually, that line started in Catch-22: "It's a terrible thing to treat a decent, loyal Indian like a nigger, kike, wop or spic".

The world isn't exactly short of bigots, and it's not bloody likely that there aren't a great many of them who contribute to Wikipedia, but keep their mouths shut about it. Fine. But the party in question has not only asked us to let his bigotry slide but told another editor he wishes his momma was dead. Moot point at the moment; update in six months or so. PhGustaf (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. In the first comment above, Beyond My Ken noted that D4D has done no more than say they won't engage in certain behavior, with no indication that they understand what that behavior is. Also, there is no indication of what D4D would like to do (why would an unblock help Wikipedia?). Johnuniq (talk) 07:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

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

WP:OWN-ish behavior

Ucla90024 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been reverting to his own edits and ignoring the advice of other editors, such as in [49], [50], [51], and [52]. My latest message to him was followed by a blanking of his talk page and continued reverts. Could someone give him a stern warning? …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 22:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• In the You Chung Hong article, it reads "helping rebuild the community after it was relocated to accommodate the construction of Union Station in the 1930s" and "He designed a series of buildings on Gin Ling Way, one of which ultimately housed his legal office, and developed the main entrance gate on Broadway and its neon lighting". How can an editor say "text does not support a picture of the east gate of Chinatown". Anyone knowing Chinatown will say that the gates are the most important structure there. The photo was posted by creator of the article. Ucla90024 (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• I have to agree with Ucla90024 in this case. The image has been in the article since it was added in July 2009, and the actual bold-revert-failure-to-discuss cycle here, Grayshi, is you removing the image, you being reverted, and you not going to the talk page to discuss but repeating your edit and then warning someone else for not agreeing with your bold changes. Uncle G (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • A typical example of boomerang OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• I restored the image to the article and tried to clarify in the image caption the relationship between the arch and the article's subject. The article has had the image since it was created and there is a reference to the arch that has been there since the article was created. This is an issue that would have been better played out on the article's talk page or that of the editor in question, with a question asking for a clearer explanation, rather than turning into a slow-motion edit war. Alansohn (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to stop participating in this now. Articles are off my watchlist.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 04:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

And how does any of this explain his behavior on other articles? He has added miscellaneous images to other articles, gave vague reasons why they belonged on the talk page, and then left. Any removal or modification of the images he adds is instantly reverted. I have asked him several times on different talk pages to explain. All but one was ignored, and the only response was a vague remark about how it is "not helpful for someone in Canada to make changes" to the article. …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 20:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Pashto language

This issue involves a dispute with user Lagoo Sab. It was about style as well as content of the official language section of above lemma. I have asked for a 3O on 06-12-2010 which was given by user Ironholds. Lagoo Sab had nevertheless re-edited saying both of us are biased resulting in a dispute as well as what I consider personal attacks as well as hypothesizing about my identity. I have encorporated suggested changes into the section, restructured it to account the undue weight notice entered by Lagoo Sab. And am simply frustrated as of now. I will provide diff links in the process but would appreciate assistance. Chartinael (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• To give further context as to the user behaviour - personal attack, personal attack and assumption of bad faith, discrediting of a source based on the writer's ethnicity and religious beliefs, personal attack and assumption of bad faith. Ironholds (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I dealt with it before I saw your report here, but I came to the same conclusions you did after seeing his report at WP:ANEW. He's blocked 24h. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 22:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually that's discrediting a source on the grounds that not all sources are reliable. Which they aren't. I, too, have seen books where paragraphs or even chapters have been copied from the WWW. I've also seen books that aren't academic works. I own several. ☺ And the correct response is, as you did, to point out that the author is a credentialed expert writing in xyr field of expertise.

    The response that you missed out on was noticing the possible conflation of official language with language with the largest number of L1 speakers. It's not necessary to take a census to determine the former. Uncle G (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

    • "That claim is made by Rizwan Hussein, a Shia book writer" is fairly clearly aimed at impugning the writer and therefore the source :P. Ironholds (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Only if one regards "shia" as an insult. Why are you regarding it as an insult? Uncle G (talk) 07:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Without looking further into this, I am well aware that if someone who identifies as a Sunni were to comment that a source was produced by a Shia that this might be an attempt to deprecate the source - much like a Protestant noting a source was written by a Catholic in regards to some matters. In some cultures such commentary would not be considered extraordinary, but it is inappropriate within Wikipedia. Part of WP:NPA notes the use of "affiliation" to diminish another editors contribution as being a violation of policy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
          • You're confusing "another editor" with "person who authored the source under discussion". Uncle G (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
            • According to all sources Shi'as are around 15% and Sunnis up to 90%. So whenever someone says such book writer being used as a source is a Shia, it's basically saying that the view of the book writer is a minority view. This is especially important when the book writer is discussing information relating to Sunnis. In this case, the Shia book writer Rizwan Hussien is writing about Pashtuns who are about 99% Sunnis.--Lagoo sab (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Timeline of Conflict

This is regarding the conflict I have with user Lagoo Sab since the lemma first came to my attention in October 2010.

The lemma came to my attention in October of 2010 when user: timbaland made changes on the -de version regarding size of native speakers from 33 mio to 50 mio referencing the -en lemma. After looking into the speaker population issue I referenced the numbers according to safe, but agreed on academic estimates and introduced an official language section. Another attempt to up numbers without reference was made by an IP a few days later. The German lemma stayed at that.

At the same time I looked into the -en lemma, trying to figure out how the high numbers were sourced. The source was the ethnologue differentiating between speaker population and ethnic population. Since the Pashto lemma is about the language, the speaker size should be the figure stuck to and in the lemma on ethnicity the higher number ought to be found. However, there seems to have been an ongoing dispute as the higher numbers replacing lower although unreferenced numbers as well were entered by Lagoo Sab [53] This issue caused Lagoo Sab to call me a POV-Warrior as he found the ethnic population and corrected outrageously wrong numbers entered by another editor [54] which I replaced with speaker population referenced by several academic sources [55] as the ethnologue gives an estimate on ethnic population suggesting speaker population is higher than given. Backing figures up with Encyclopaedia Iranica, UCLA Language Project and Ethnolgue

My version of the story goes like this:

• My first edits on Pashto language in July 2010: [56]
• User:Tajik from Germany lowers percentage of Pashto-speakers: [57]
• IP 94.219.198.90 from Germany [58] insulting and attacking Pashtuns lowers percentage of Pashto-speakers: [59]
• IP 94.219.198.90 from Germany again with his OR and POVs: [60]
• I reverted his unsourced OR and POVs [61] which was quickly reverted on the same day by User:Cabolitae [62]. These users and the German IP stopped editing the article and User:Chartinael who claims to be from Germany began editing the article in October 2010 by lowering the percentage of Pashto-speakers from 50 to 20 million.[63] I am cerain that User:Chartinael, who described himself to me as a German by nationality and citizenship, is a Persian (Iranian-Afghan) living in Germany. I don't care about this, I'm only against lies and putting false information. If I sound weird, it's probably because I don't drink alcohol and I'm a devouted Muslim who is forced to tell the truth. I believe that all my deeds will be revealed, from tiny ones to major ones, on the Day when I have to face God to be judged. So therefore, it serves me no such good to make even a tiny lie anywhere. If you don't believe in God, I also understand that and I have no problem with you. Just ask yourself when you do good or bad deeds very secretly that nobody but only you saw them, then how come when you do the good deeds something good always happens to you and when you do bad deed something always bad happens to you. That's proof that somebody is always watching over us even when we think we are all alone.--Lagoo sab (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The Official language Section and the Issue of Speaker and Ethnic Population

Lagoo Sab has been keeping an eye on the official language section, reverting edits [64] that were unwarranted (32%) with other good edits (comparison of pashto and persion on socio-economic level) or regarding Persian being the lingua franca [65]

After an edit by Bejnar in the official language section [66] replacing unsourced stuff with more unsourced although slightly more correct stuff, I rewrote part of that parallel in [67] and -en when Lagoo Sab made changes removing and replacing sources [68] especially adding a rather full quote from a public domain paper not published by an academic publisher which I contested [69] and Lagoo Sab reverted [70]. After reverting back and forth with no sign of Lagoo Sab understanding the difference between speaker and ethnic population, he took the issue to the talk page although he even quotes his source correctly [71]. He backs his POV claim against me with UCLA, which has an even lower estimate of speaker population cherry picking the percentages and doing OR applying them to figures from other sources while realizing that the speaker population is only an estimate. User Ketabtoon supports Lagoo Sab, while mixing and mingeling with sources, applying percentages taken from source a at year x to raw figures of source b from year y saying primary census data is to be used instead of secondary academic data - which I contest but was willing to use the higher number backed by an academic paper as well. At no avail, WP:OR continues with Ketabtoon which I contest again pointing out again that speaker and ethnic population are not identical while Lagoo Sab says estimates are fine if they are generally accepted and my safe and academically backed numbers are OR [72] I leave it at that. Especially after the 3RR rule has been called on me by user Kaddoo who also hypothesizes about my identity but thinks better of it.

I checked back about a month later starting right of with reverting nonsense edit by Kaki joe and restructuring section which was inconsistent. Revert from Lagoo Sab without comment. On December 1st, I checked back and saw that he had gone back to the official language version which I consider bad in style and consistency. So I restructured once more asking him for explanation through the comment which Lagoo Sab rvv on the 6th calling me an anti-Pashtun POV-pusher and a Tajik ethnocentric without discussing it as requested on the talk page on December 1st . Instead he called me a POV-Warrior writing persian ethnocentric bullshit being obsessed with hate. At that time I explain to him again that I have no pro- nor anti-Pashto POV and that I realize that discussion is futile as I am dealing with a fanatic. Lagoo Sab differs and says I am user:Sommerkom or user: Phoenix2 with whom it seems he has issues. He disregards reputable academic sources as an unverifiableTajik biased demonstrating my low? level of intelligence continuing on to comparing implicitely me to Hitler because I am German. Which again leads to wild hypothesizing regarding my identity here as well.

Third Opinion

I then refute to asking for a 3O regarding the disagreement regarding Phrasing / Structuring of Official Status Section in Pashto Language article here and informing lemma-editors in talk-section after restructuring to make both versions easily comparable. User Ironholds responds to the 3O request and user ReporterMan removes 3O thereafter.

Sources

Lagoo Sab dismisses sources as Tajik and Shi'a thus on the basis of ethnicity and religion of author while the CAL source is claimed to be neutral despite the fact the the authors Farid Younos and Mariam Mehdi may or may not be biased thus dismissing academic publishers like Routledge, Ashgate and others. He has issues with Rizwan Hussain a source and dismisses his research methods although Hussain used in several other lemmata as stated by me in response.

Lagoo Sab enters a new source into the discussion (Tariq Rahman) which he also entered into the lemma as an external link. After reviewing article, which btw is published in the academic journal which gave excellent reviews to the Hussain source Lagoo Sab dismisses, I make a statement to the effect, that not all ethnic pasthun speak pashto - which was backed by this new source and contested by Sab himself [73], saying that I have issues [74]. Ironhold, however, finds this notion "ludicrous".

Ironhold asked me if all the Pashtuns speak Pashto language and I said yes, but as a first language only. He calls that "ludicrous". I said he has issues if he doesn't believe my facts. If he wants to know he should read the Pashtun people article instead of asking me questions in tlak pages.--Lagoo sab (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ending Conflict?

At that time I had taken the issue to the administrative notice board asking for intervention while at the same time Lagoo Sab took the fact I reverted his adding a royal title to the rulers as a way to call a 3RR on me. And this is where we stand. I would like to be able to edit without being assaulted immediately as a non-intelligent tajik shia ethnocentric with a bunch of sockpuppets and would like somebody to explain to Lagoo Sab that academic publications are preferable to tertiary internet sources. Basically, I would just like to not be in the focus of his persian-pashto tunnel view. Chartinael (talk) 12:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk about excessive investigation, it is unnessary to make such a long report when the issue is very minor. And the issue is that Chartinael's edits try to draw a conclusion that Pashtuns (42-60% of Afghanistan population), who are the founders of Afghanistan in the early 18th century, forced Pashto language on the population of Afghanistan. This kind of sensitive information should be explained to readers in a very unbiased and neutral way. In the early 20th century, Afghanistan was witnessing modernization for the first time, with western-built universities and schools being established. The majority of Afghanistan's population were Pashtuns (speakers of Pashto language) so it was the only thing to do for the government by making Pashto and Persian both the official languages, which is because about half the population speak Pashto and the other half Persian. But the article isn't explaining this properly, it is trying to say that the leaders of Afghanistan were Persian-speakers and they decided to make Pashto the official language. The article has irrelevant information but missing very important things like what I'm focusing on. Who cares if Amanullah Khan (just one individual) was able to speak Pashto or not? One source provided says he couldn't but the other one states that he made speaches in Pashto, so which one are we suppose to believe? I suggest we start a "History" section and explain the history of Pashto language.--Lagoo sab (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Move drive by User:MatthewVanitas & User:Someone65

Resolved

 – This is a content dispute and as such should be resolved through dispute resolution. Admin intervention is not necessary unless editors cannot resolve problems without the use of administrator tools, and there is currently no indication that these are necessary. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

User:MatthewVanitas is also moving articles, few of moves may be justifiable e.g. removing of honorofics & titles but to remove Sayyed, Syed, Sayed from names and moving them to new name without these surnames (e.g. Sayyed Ahmad Saeed Kazmi to Ahmad Saeed Kazmi) is not correct, to be noted Syed is not title or honorofic it is part of name. He is also moving articles having Shia, Shi`ite to Shi'a.
Log: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&limit=500&type=move&user=MatthewVanitas&hide_patrol_log=1&hide_review_log=1&month=&year=

User:Someone65 is engaged in move drive. He is moving articles having Islamic to Calipahte and Shi'a, Shi`ite to Shia.
Log:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=move&user=Someone65&page=&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=

As these moves by the two users are not sporadic event but massive drive, they should have been discussed at proper space. Due to lack of discussion they seem to be working in opposite directions on Shia/Shi'a articles. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 01:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments: 1) please note that the "Shi'a" spelling issue is part of a massive cleanup and category sort I've been doing of Category:Shi'a Islam. We'd brought up the Shi'a vs. Shia vs. Shiite spelling issue a couple years ago on WP:ISLAM, and at that point folks had signaled an overall preference for Shi'a, so several of the articles and new cats I started then were spelled "Shi'a". Fast forward a year or two, and there's still no standardisation whatsoever, but since the majority of pages/cats had "Shi'a", and "Shiite" has fallen out of popular academic usage, I've been moving to "Shi'a" except in set phrases (e.g. "Shiite Tide") where the other spelling is common.

2) I've had extremely low response rates at WP:ISLAM for Shi'a issues, so I brought up the Shi'a spelling issue last week on the Talk page of Shi'a Islam, and nobody but the complainant had any opinion, and there was no opposition to "Shi'a", so I figured WP:BEBOLD and made the spelling of a minority of articles/cats conform to the majority.

3) So far as honorifics, that's also part of a larger cleanup where I've been trying to fix the articles where "Hazrat" (his holiness), and other honorifics have been improperly used in the title, and where tons of further honorifics (e.g. A.S., S.A.W., "peace be upon him") have been used. I agree there are some names where "Syed" is used as a name vice a "descendant of Muhammad" title. However, the vast majority of those I removed were instead "Syedna", which was being used as a title of Mustaali Ismaili figures.

4) I'm a bit miffed that the complainant didn't bother to contact me on my Talk page. A simple "hey, can you hold off on your changes and we'll discuss it on WP:ISLAM for a bit?" would have been fine, would've gone with that. In short, the above complaints cover about 5% of a huge amount of long-overdue cleanup work I've been doing on Islamic topics, and to whatever degree I've been overzealous in the honorifics issue is largely due to having POV-pushers (who refuse to answer any of my Talk posts) making titles like "His High Holiness and Most Excellent Syed Ahmed Hyderabadi Qalandard (may God be pleased with him". Given that any names I may have over-chopped were names that I simply could not find proper versions of on Google or GoogleBooks, said authors should just be glad I didn't propose deletion for no verifiability. In any case, Faizhaider can drop me a line about any direction he thinks should change on Shi'a articles, and I'll contact Someone65 to make sure we aren't at cross-purposes on Shi'a vs. Shia. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

For the Caliphate issue, I discussed that here : Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85#Moving_articles_from_.22Islam.22-related_titles_to_.22Caliphate.22_related_titles_is_part_of_the_Jag_cleanup.3F

For the Shia/shi'a issue, thanks for notifying me; im okay with User:MatthewVanitas version, but i would prefer Shia. Someone65 (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any complaint regarding removing of honorofics (Maulana, Syedana, etc. infact at few times I also have moved articles to remove the honorofics) and move to Shi'a. I'm worried about move drives which are running in parallel and opposite to each other. This way one's work is been undone by other. And removal of Syed as part of name. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 03:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I've posted on Someone65's page asking him to come to WP:ISLAM to discuss spelling, and posted links on the Talk pages for WP:PAKISTAN, WP:IRAN, and WP:IRAQ. It's just to get some discussion right now, but if we can get some solid agreement and justification it might be good to see if we can get some agreed-on spellings into WP:MOSISLAM or similar. But in the meantime at least it gives folks a chance to weigh in on standardisation, though in the short-term I would argue that my changes were targeting the minority of variant spellings vice a huge move. I'm honestly baffled by Someone65's "Caliphate" changes, but since that argument is well-underway I'll stay out of it. If I have, among literally dozens of cleanups of honorifics in the last weeks, chopped a "Syed" where it was a name vice a title, I do apologise (particularly if the name was googleable and I missed it), but again that's a tiny portion of an overall non-controversial cleanup. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not questioning anyone's all efforts just pointed out my concerns. As the matter was related to two editors which seemed to be not connected except that unknowingly they were working parallel and opposite to each other. I am part of wikkiproject:Islam and there no such discussion was happening (now there is one) and I didn't have idea of any other related discussion, there was not much on two editor's talk page except related to 'Islamic & Caliphate' at Someone65's talk page but it seemed it was not having good progress. My apologies to two editors if my ANI post has offended them in anyway, this was not my motive I just wanted to get things straight asap. BTW, article Sayyid & its talk may also be consulted regarding Syed title dialogue. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 03:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm marking this one resolved, as this has not reached a point where administrator intervention is required. As per dispute resolution, conversation is always the first step when contributors are editing in good faith but disagreements exist over the direction of that editing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Disagreement over Allen West (politician)

Note: I condensed 2 related threads into one for sanity of reviewing admins --Jayron32 04:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)And I edit conflicted with you. Basket of Puppies 04:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Side A

I need an administrator at Allen_West_(politician), West is a retired Lieutenant Colonel who was fined for his actions during an interrogation. After being fined, he retired from the army. Prior to my edits, the opening said "West is a retired United States Army Lieutenant Colonel", which I think is a lie of omission as there is much more to the story than West being simply a retired Lieutenant Colonel. Ive made this argument in the talk page as well, but if the opening to Richard Nixon said hes just retired as president in 1974, someone would add short details about watergate. My initial reaction to his edits was that he may have a conflict of interest, as all of his edits are to the one page, which I viewed a classic sign of a campaign staffer, but after his personal attacks on me, I dont think that is the case. In his first edit, Dchip12 the removed the mention of the interrogations, and added large amounts of non notable information about the military service of West's relatives, and also added " Growing up, West knew he was destined to be in the military." [[75]]. After Dchip12's personal attacks against me, a third opinion came in and kept my mention of West's interrogations, Im fairly certain that it has been decided that the interrogation should be mentioned in the opening, but now Dchip12 insists on his edit of Wests' extended family's military service, which I dont think anyone could see as notable. Dchip12 has also rewritten the opening, but it does not flow as well as the previous opening, and contains a blaring run on sentence in the second paragraph [[76]], so I did revert it and I tried to explain to him in the talk page [[77]] why I did so, but the only response i have gotten from him was that A)need to get friends[[78]], and B) I, a registered republican who lives a thousand miles away in NJ am a supporter of West's (former) opponent[[79]].

Ive tried my best to maintain a civil discussion, but Dchip12's responses to me seem to be more about personal attacks than any edits. --Tippx (talk) 03:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Side B

I need an administrator at Allen_West_(politician), This user above "Tippx" insists on making ridiculous excuses on why information should be withheld from Allen West's wiki page. I'm just a casual Wiki observer and only contributed for the 2nd time a few days ago and it was all I intended. I just put a few facts about West's family in his early life section and Tippx claims facts like "West's dad served in WWII, his brother served in Vietnam, his nephew is a young captain" is too much an "overwhelmingly positive POV" when it's not even a Point of View. It's a FACT. He attempts to claim I stated and I quote "long list of West's family's military history that sounds like a campaign ad".... West's campaign ended over a month ago. So that's complete rubbish. What's funny is I'm not even a big West fan nor am I that into politics for that matter. Nor am I a big Wiki user. I just figured I'd put facts like what I have for readers and I'd be on my way, but this guy is so threatened by West for some insane reason. He needs to be looked over. Again, he's even trying to paint me as putting a "campaign ad" by just stating facts about West's family and despite West's campaign and mid-term elections are long over. And again, I'm not even a big West fan, I'm more apathetic than anything but clearly Tippx is threatened by him for some reason otherwise he wouldn't go to such trouble as to want an article a certain way. Tippx want's the simple single facts about West's Dad and Brother gone but he "coincidentally" insisted West's controversial exit from the military be put at the top of his page. He also CONTINUES TO claim the statement "Growing up, West knew he was destined to be in the U.S. military" was MY statement when I have REPEATEDLY told him it was CLEARLY a statement I got directly from one of the cited sources I put down from this article right here in which the reporter, Anthony Man, got that from West. It states that West said he was destined for the military. He flat out says that in the article, an article which came out a few days ago, so I put it up. Allen West: from controversy to Congress Also since then, I went ahead and included a statement that West was forced to retire due to a controversial incident but Tippx still wants to play.

He flat out LIES above when he states "but the only response i have gotten from him was that A)need to get friends69, and B) I, a registered republican who lives a thousand miles away in NJ am a supporter of West's (former) opponent"

I CLEARLY answered his questions for why I put things in my statement and he is a blatant liar when he says he's a Repub from where he says he is. It's an attempt to make me look like the bad guy here. I trust you'll read over how this thing got started with me innocently, for only the 2nd time EVER, inserting information on West's page after I came across it in an article and since then Tippx has decided to troll Allen West's page and give everything a hard time.

This user clearly is just an anti-West guy who's upset to the fact he insists on deleting things of mine that are just plain FACT, not POV's, all cited correctly. He needs a talking to. And if not that, he needs to be banned from the West page, if not from Wikipedia altogether.

Dchip12 (talk) 04:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Responses

This is not the complaints department. Please attempt to solve these problems at any of the methods described at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Until administrators see evidence that other methods of dispute resolution have been tried, they are unlikely to step in to sanction anybody. Unless both parties wish to be blocked for edit warring, find outside help in the form of a Third Opinion or a Request for Comment. --Jayron32 04:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have removed the uncivil section header and united the two sections. Dchip12, making a new section with such an uncivil title does not help your complaint. Comment on the content, not the contributors. Ok? Basket of Puppies 04:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Dchip12 blocked 24 hours for personal attacks after being warned about civility, Tippx regretfully blocked as well for edit warring before coming here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Tippx block review requested

I propose to reverse the block of Tippx. Although the behavior of this relatively inexperienced user was not optimal, I do not see an unreasonable number of reverts, the talkpage was used, and when the situation escalated the user appropriately brought the matter here for review at ANI. In general, when one finds oneself performing an action "regretfully," one should consider whether there might be better alternatives. Here, I think a reminder or warning would have been sufficient to address Tippx's behavior. Posting here and requesting comments by others. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I was drawn to the disagreement due to the unblock request on Tippx's talkpage. Having poked around, I was not satisfied enough by Tippx's actions in relation to the entire situation to accept his unblock request as it was significantly WP:NOTTHEM and their actions showed poor understanding of WP:CONSENSUS overall. At the same time, I was also not enough convinced to decline the request. I commented accordingly, and seeing as the editor prefers to delete rather than archive, I linked a few hopefully helpful pages for his perusal during the 24hr block (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I saw Bwilkins' comment on the block, which is one of the reasons I took this to ANI for discussion rather than just unblock on my review, which I might have otherwise done unilaterally on a 24-hour block (for fear that the ANI discussion will not be finished before the block expires by time). I think that the user's actions in discontinuing the edit-war, discussing with the other user, and then bringing the matter here showed sufficient respect for Wikipedia norms that the block was not necessary and certainly its continuation is not. Whether the unblock request was worded optimally struck me as not being the issue. I hope we'll get some further input here, including from SarekOfVulcan as the blocking admin. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I have no particular problem with an unblock of Tippx -- as I said above, I regretted doing it in the first place, but the amount of edit warring seemed a bit too much for me just to warn. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Tippx should be unblocked. We are seeing far too many of these heavy-handed blocks recently. Malleus Fatuorum 13:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I had unblocked Tippx and posted as such on their talk page about 10 minutes before you said that, Malleus. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

He still seems to be blocked so far as I can see, perhaps it's just a caching problem somewhere. Malleus Fatuorum 14:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

According to his block log: [80] he was unblocked according to the following entry:

• 13:30, December 8, 2010 Gwen Gale (talk | contribs | block) unblocked "Tippx (talk | contribs)" ‎ (unblock req accepted)

This was 15 minutes prior to the request by Malleus to unblock him. --Jayron32 15:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

NLT Heads-up

WP:NLT heads up, See: MediaWiki_talk:Robots.txt#Robot_Exclusion_for_Wikimedia_images. Peachey88 ^{(T · C)} 06:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

User indeffed. I will notify the Foundation. Tiderolls 06:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

BLP violations by User:Delicious carbuncle

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

Repeated BLP violations by the user in question, despite requests to stop and 3:1 consensus at WP:RSN against using a questioned source that fails WP:RS on a WP:BLP page.

---

1. Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) adds controversial info sourced to website "www.truthaboutscientology.com" to WP:BLP page on Jamie Sorrentini, diff link
2. After talk page discussion, this issue was taken to WP:RSN. At the RSN discussion three editors, myself and two others, did not support use of this website as a source.
3. Fifelfoo stated, "Unreliable. Self-published; absence of recognised expertise; no editorial oversight."
4. Becritical commented, "There's no indication that the site is reliable."
5. Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) was shown a prior Request for Comment on the matter, where dispute resolution did not find consensus to use the website as a source, at Talk:Catherine_Bell/Archive_1#Request_for_Comments_-_Use_of_the_.22truthaboutscientology.22_website from 2007.
6. In a strange edit summary actually acknowledging there is no consensus supporting use of a questionable source in a BLP, Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) willfully violated BLP anyways, and added the questionable info back with the website source that fails WP:RS, see diff link.
7. I posted a note to the user's talk page, asking him to stop the BLP violations at the BLP page, and stated the issue would be reported if the disruptive behavior continued, see diff link.
8. Despite the 3:1 consensus against using this website source from the WP:RSN thread, and the WP:BLP issues involved as mentioned at the user's talk page - Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) proceeded to add this website source and questionable info to the BLP page, now a 3rd time, see diff link.

---

Requesting a previously uninvolved admin take action here. The info violates WP:RS and violates WP:BLP. It is contentious, poorly sourced info about a BLP, and should be removed from this BLP page. Admin action should be taken with respect to the disruptive behavior of Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs); deferring to uninvolved admins to review. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 07:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• This looks also as though it has WP:ARBSCI implications, especially remedy 13 and remedy 4. --Jayron32 07:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, however the user has not been previously notified of WP:ARBSCI by an uninvolved admin. In any event, it seems actionable simply under the repeated WP:BLP violations, itself. -- Cirt (talk) 08:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
    • DC has now been notified that all Scientology articles are under ARBCOM sanction. I have also removed the contested text per WP:BURDEN and WP:BLP pending resolution of the issue. I have no opinion over the reliability of the source nor of the appropriateness or relevence of the text to the article in question; the removal of the text is purely administrative as Wikipedia policy is clear that contested text of this nature is to be left out until the dispute is resolved. --Jayron32 08:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

He obviously meant the edit summary to be "there appears to be no consensus on NOT using this source and it is used on other BLPs" We really need to have a consensus for or against using it, it seems to be a wider issue. I see no indication of editorial oversight as I said before, and would not use it. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 09:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Reply by Delicious carbuncle

I am not a Scientologist nor an activist against Scientology. In fact, I have no particular interest in Scientology and have no strong opinion on the reliability of the source that seems to have sparked this tempest in a teapot, but I hope that this episode does get the attention of ArbCom as there is clearly something very wrong in the area of Scientology-related articles.

1. I identified Jamie Sorrentini as a Scientologist, citing a source that at that time was being used in other biographies of living people (I know this because I copied the citation from another BLP to save myself a bit of typing).
2. Literally within a minute of my adding that reference, Cirt had removed it, claiming it was not a reliable source.
3. After I point out on the article's talk page that Cirt has used that source themselves, they state "I have not used that source for years, after discussion on multiple talk pages and consensus against using that website as a source".
   1. The first statement is simply wrong, as this same source had been added by Cirt to articles as recently as August 2009, including BLPs (eg Barret Oliver). What is more , as recently as April, Cirt left the source in a BLP when they went on a spree of trimming information from BLPs of Scientologists.
   2. The second statement (about consensus) appears to be wrong, although it is repeated by Cirt in the WP:RSN thread that they started ("Consensus in the past at Scientology-related talkpages has been that it is not an acceptable source and fails WP:RS"). When Cirt provides a link to this consensus, it is a discussion from 2007 that is inconclusive and where Cirt (editing at that time as User:Smee) is in favour of using the source. Cirt later contradicts their earlier statements by stating that "There is not consensus now, there was not consensus then...".
4. Minutes after saying "there is not consensus now", Cirt posts in the RSN thread saying that I had gone against consensus and "violated BLP" by adding the information back into the article. Again, this was a source that was being used in other BLPs and the RSN thread was still very new.
5. In messages left on my talk page and elsewhere, Cirt uses the phrase "3:1 consensus" meaning that three editors have suggested that the source is not reliable and one (ostensibly me) believes it o be a reliable source. This appears to be a novel interpretation of consensus.

Although I was not aware of the extent of Cirt's involvement with that source, my feeling is that they were content to use it so long as it suited their purposes. Once I used it to label Jamie Sorrentini as a Scientologist (and note that there appears to be no dispute that Sorrentini was a member of the Church of Scientology), Cirt decided that it was no longer a reliable source. Only after this dispute began did Cirt remove the source from CoS-related articles. And only after being questioned about it did Cirt remove sections in BLPs that were left unsourced or poorly sourced by that removal.

To be plain, Cirt's purpose here and on Wikinews is to advocate against the Church of Scientology (hereafter referred to as CoS for brevity). Not to ensure a neutral point of view, but to identify, minimize, and add negative information about members of the CoS and the CoS itself. This is the sole reason for the puff piece Cirt created about an otherwise unremarkable minor actress named Jamie Sorrentini who has split from the CoS and become a critic. It does not suit Cirt's purpose to have her labelled as a Scientologist, hence the aggressive reaction to my edits, by which I hope Cirt has helped to make the real issue clear. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

User:LouisPhilippeCharles indefinite block?

Resolved

 – blocked for 1 month per consensus here. Jclemens (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

LouisPhilippeCharles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

It has been brought to my notice that User:LouisPhilippeCharles has moved a page without putting in a WP:RM, something (s)he promised to do to end his/her last block.

Earlier this year it came to the notice of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations that User:LouisPhilippeCharles had been repeatedly cut and pasting article content from one page to another (when (s)he was aware of how to use the move tab to move a page), and seemed in many cases to be doing it to revert WP:RM moves. Although asked to help clean up the mess User:LouisPhilippeCharles has never participated in that clean-up. Since then due to her/his none consensual moves of pages (s)he has been repeatedly blocked (for longer and longer periods), for moving pages without seeking a consensus.

Should we block User:LouisPhilippeCharles for a finite period of six months or more, or impose an indefinate block on her/him? -- PBS (talk) 08:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

User:LouisPhilippeCharles has been notified -- PBS (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

My own limited experience of this editor is that he can be very persistant in his views, which is not a problem in itself, but he's also not very good at discussing and solving the problems which some of his actions create. However, looking at his block log it does seem to be Philip Baird Shearer who is the admin most frequently blocking and unblocking. Perhaps, to ensure impartiality, another Admin need to take a closer look. At this stage, an indefinite block seems a quite harsh, but perhaps a prety firm warning (if found necessary) from another Admin may do the trick. If that fails, then a month long block may be the next course of action.  Giacomo  09:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

After a one day, two days and a one week block for ignoring restrictions on page moves placed upon him/her,the last block was for a month. I cut short the block after User:LouisPhilippeCharles specifically promised only to move pages by a WP:RM request:

"[I] agree not to make any more article moves without using Requested move under the provisions of "controversial and potentially controversial moves", Truly. LPC (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Each block was appealed by LouisPhilippeCharles and other administrators have warned him/her to alter her/his behaviour in their reviews of the blocks

See for example:[81]

You agreed to an editing restriction due to the bad page moves you have made in the past. You willfully violated that restriction, and caused yet another mess in the process. You should probably not move pages at all in the future, instead suggesting new titles on talk pages and leaving it to others to decide. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2010

-- PBS (talk) 10:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I move one page. One. For the sake of consistency. And look who it is who told you in the first place =\ Have you been informed that there is a case for him stalking me?! I am happy to be left to my own devices on Wikipedia to cohabit quietly which I have been doing for quite a while if you will agree LPC (talk) 11:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support reinstatement of 1 month block to start: The user is absolutely gaming the system Their block log shows a series of escalating blocks for the exact same reason - the last 1 month block was removed after 2 days for promising to follow a policy. His very first indef was reduced after 2 days for promising to follow the same policy. Enough already, let's protect the project. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support 1 month, oppose indef - the longest block to date was 1 week; escalating from 1 week to indef sems a bit much; a decision to escalate to 1 month has already been made, and cancelled on condition; the moment the condition was violated, we should re-instate it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support re-instatement of block, consider increased tariff. Per Giano's comment, that the user should be firmly warned and then LPC's defence of "it was only one unilateral move, despite my saying I would never to it again, why don't you leave me alone?" that perhaps a 3 month block would serve notice that one needs to keep to one's unblock conditions. It should also be noted that PBS is not stalking, since it was a third party that notified him of the transgression. LPC very obviously needs to have cluestick applied with force. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Striking part, since I misread who LPC was commenting upon. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support re-instatement of block, block was lifted due to certain assurances which he has now broken. I'd not object to a one month extension; I'd oppose indef at this stage. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support re-instatement of block, resetting the one-month clock. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support re-instatement of block, with a clear message that further transgressions will likely result in an indefinite block, bearing in mind LPC's talents for interpreting messages his own way. Favonian (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support re-instatement of block at least. Last time I checked, 1 does not equal 0 (if it did, the universe would consist of a single point), and the gripe about "stalking" is absurd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

AWB users using misleading edit summaries

I recently complained about an AWB user changing referencing system (introducing named refs where not otherwise used) while using an edit summary indicating that what they were doing was "clean up". I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Please use informative edit summaries, asking the people using AWB to use more informative edit summaries.

Today I came across this edit on my watchlist, with a user introducing named refs to an article. The edit summary was:

(Typo fixing, typos fixed: suddently → suddenly using AWB

The typo was there and needed fixing but the change in referencing, a far more significant (and in my view, detrimental) change, wasn't mentioned in the edit summary.

Although the use of individual diffs will almost inevitably make it seem that way, I don't want to make this about individual users. This problem is systemic. Even when making changes which, in my view, are highly useful, such as introducing persondata templates, AWB users will often give no indication in the edit summary of what they are doing.

Links to other discussions:

• User talk:Bender235#Change of referencing system with misleading edit summary
• Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Please use informative edit summaries (see the discussions immediately below as well)

I don't believe that it would be considered acceptable for a user editing manually to consistently give misleading edit summaries. Is it just fine to do so when the editor can hide behind AWB? --Hegvald (talk) 14:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Since this is an AWB general fix, this whole issue would be solved if AWB adds a "general fixes applied" to the edit summary. —bender235 (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

According to [[Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Named references, it no longer is a "general fix", but this apparently doesn't stop people using an old version. In either case, "general fixes" isn't really informative except to other AWB users. --Hegvald (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, anything to fix messy referencing like that is a good idea I think. But, yeh, it would be nice to see clearer AWB edit messages--Errant ^(chat!) 14:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

There was no "messy referencing" needing "fixing" in the relevant articles. --Hegvald (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Personal view; duplicate refs is poor layout. I fully support the idea of combining refs for better clarity and cleanliness. You're welcome to disagree, but I think it looks horrid and is a throwover from uptight paper-based (academic) referencing of little use to online readers --Errant ^(chat!) 14:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

For what its worth when I do this type of change I usually use something like fix portals, brackets, typos, dates, links, references, categories and formatting. Most folks wouldn't know what a "General fix" was. --Kumioko (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The user probably had the "general fixes" checkbox checked, and saved the edit without thinking about the other changes being made (note that there are several things which may be adfded incidently for the same reasons, such as adding {{Persondata}}, changing normal spaces to no break spaces (&nbsp;), and others). The edit summary can hardly be called "misleading" if one considers what the user was actually trying to do - (s)he actually did' fix the spelling mistake. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

If I completely rewrote three sections of an article and fixed a typo in a fourth, wouldn't it be misleading if the edit summary only said "fixing typo"? It is misleading by omission. --Hegvald (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Considering that the named references allowed the refs to be combined, I really don't see why this is a problem. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that this was a useful edit and although there are times that the edit summeries could use more clarity sometimes it woudl be impossible to accurately capture every edit made to an article in many cases. --Kumioko (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a subtle point here - intentionally deceptive edit summaries are a cause for concern, but unclear or ambiguous edit summaries...while not optimal...are more something that should be taken up with users on a case by case. Syrthiss (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe anything in this edit can be called typo fixing, but it is the only summary used. This one has a very minor typo fix, but considering that it doesn't change anything in how the page works or looks, I don't think either of them are good use of AWB and both fail the rule of "Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits". Fram (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I switch to the edit summary "Typo and general fixing" whenever the diff shows any general fixes in addition to my intended typo fixes. If the consensus here is that this is not a good enough edit summary, then I will have to leave the general fixes turned off until such time as AWB can itself generate a concise and correct description of whichever general fixes have taken effect. I see no point in using a fits-all-edits summary such as "fix portals, brackets, typos, dates, links, references, categories and formatting" (copied from above) if only one or two of these have actually been done to the given article; the AWB user interface does not provide a decent-sized edit box for keying in a per-article edit summary; and having to key in a per-article edit summary would slow down the typo fixing enormously. (30,000 typo fixes and counting). -- John of Reading (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Given the number of probelems that AWB fixes and that the users themselves can create their own I think that forcing AWB to account for every different change is too burdensome of a requirement to levy on the developers. There might be some improvements that can be made (ill leave that to the developers to decide) but IMO we need to live with a more generic edit summery such as the one I have given. Turning off general fixes IMO negates much of the reason for using AWB. I do admit that we AWB users should be careful about what summery we use so its more clear what we are changing and I admit that I have been guilty of that myself. --Kumioko (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the point is that "general fixes" is such a meaningless statement as to be the equivalent of a blank edit summary. Every edit fixes an article at some level, so saying "I fixed it" isn't helpful to anyone. Users should leave descriptive edit summaries which say exactly what is done, as much as possible. If any edit makes such large and varied changes that the edit summary box isn't long enough to list them, then you write "see talk page" and leave a detailed note there. This shouldn't be a negotiable issue. I have never used AWB, but if it allows users to leave more descriptive edit summaries, and they are just choosing not to, then its not AWB's problem, it is the problem of the individual user. --Jayron32 15:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

What you are asking for would require the AWB editors to evaluate every edit being made and change the edit summery every time for each article. That isn't realistic especially when there is no way to pick and choose what edits to perform. Nor is leaving a seperate note on the talk page. AWB is designed to make a lot of minor changes to articles and this would basically eliminate any gains made by using AWB. If this happens knowone would be able to use it, not even bots and we would have to go back to doing every edit manually to make sure that all the edit summeries are as "descriptive as possible". Is that really what you want? A bot and AWB free Wikipedia? --Kumioko (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

No, and I would ask you to NOT tell me I said things which I did not say. It is rude to misrepresent the statemenst of other people, and I take offense that you are doing so. What I am saying is that in cases where the individual user is doing something that requires a descriptive edit summary, they should leave one. Bots do this all the time. Users doing semi-automated editing using AWB are not exempt from the requirement that they leave edit summaries which notify others accurately of what they are doing. If you can't use AWB (or Twinkle, or Huggle, or any of the others) correctly then you shouldn't use them, period. There are hundreds of users who use these tools every day who DO leave the proper edit summaries. Using the tools in such a fast and reckless manner as to be completely unaware of what changes they are making is a problem. One should know what is done to articles after one edits them, when someone using AWB does actual damage to an article, "Sorry, I was using AWB and didn't know what it was doing" is NOT an excuse. --Jayron32 16:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

When bots edit they are usually restricted to a specific edit (adding persondata or dating maintenance tags for example) and they usually say something like general fixes. Most bots usually disable Regex typo fixes, general fixes and template redirects. To put this into perspecitve here is a link to the general fixes page of AWB. This is just one group of the edits made done by AWB. The typo fixes are seperate, the template redirects are seperate, individual find and replaces are separate, etc. I have more than 2000 Find and replace changes in my talk page group alone, I have another 1500 in the other three that I use. It would be unrealistic to have an edit summery that described every edit. In some cases yes (as in the additions of talk page banners I am currently doing), in many cases its impossible. And that could change from one article to the next. You are not asking for it to be used correctly you are trying to make it so that its unusable by making long and overly descriptive edit summeries. And every one of those users doesnt use an edit summery as descriptive as what you are asking for and they certainly arent leaving notes on talk pages explaining them. I agree that we need to be careful when making summeries but this is a rediculous knee jerk reaction that will have serious remifications. --Kumioko (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we're arguing at different points here. My main concern is not that AWB be stopped from doing what AWB does well, in the right hands. I have no desire to slow editors down who are using it correctly. Perusing the "general fixes" page, I don't find anything controversial there that would need special attention in an edit summary. My concern is in editors who hide behind their tools in justifying their errors, or who use the tools deliberately to mask controversial edits. I concede your point fully; it is not my intent to say that editors who use AWB properly should be made to stop and manually make every edit, if that was the impression I made upon you, I apologize for making such statements, and retract them. Instead, my only point is that editors need to exercise due caution when using such tools that they don't become a problem of themselves. There is clear evidence above, in diffs provided, of users whose edit summaries misrepresent their edits. That these misleading edit summaries were left by AWB rather than by a manual edit makes no difference in my mind. The responsibility to get it right still belongs with the person who makes the edit, regardless of how it is made. To sum up, yes, I concede that I overstepped in my statements which would require every tiny correction to be individually noted in an edit summary. It was not my intent (in my head) to give such an impression, but re-reading what I wrote, it DOES look like I was saying that. Let me retract and merely state I only want users to use automated tools responsibly, and where errors arise, they should be the responsibility of the person, not the tool, and the person who makes them needs to own them and fix them. --Jayron32 17:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point now and sorry I got heated there for a minute, ya scared me. --Kumioko (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

One point that may have been misunderstood above: I agree that some people might not understand what "General fixes" means in an edit summary. If the AWB user changes the edit summary to include "General fixes" (i.e. a link to the AWB General fixes documentation, like I did in the edit summary when I added this comment), then anyone viewing the edit summary could click on the link to see the list. Hopefully, people viewing this list would agree with Jayron32 that these fixes are not controversial and wouldn't need individual attention in an edit summary. GoingBatty (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Usually, if AWB editors stick to the fixes that AWB already implements, they will be OK, because AWB avoids automatically doing things that are controversial. So nobody is likely to complain about the default edit summary if AWB is used in a conservative way. I do think it would be helpful for AWB to build a better automatic edit summary listing the fixes that were applied. But many AWB users manage to avoid any complaints, so they must be doing something right.

In this case, it looks like Bender235 was running an out-of-date, buggy version of AWB that was adding named references when it wasn't supposed to. I think this has been fixed in AWB; see Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Named_references. Bender235 just needs to update to the latest version to get rid of this problem (and avoid making similar changes manually, of course). — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The bug described at Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Named_references is part of version 5.1.0.0, which is the latest stable release. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Hopefully the AWB devs will fix that soon; in the meantime Bender235 knows to watch out and undo the bug before saving. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

We are working in fixing right now. There 'll be a new release soon. We are now doing code review. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Code review is done. Next release tonight or tomorrow depending on free time in real life. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of WikiLeaks mirrors

Resolved

 – Article speedied, possibly going to DRV - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

An admin should keep an eye on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of WikiLeaks mirrors. There's been some rather nasty comments coming in such as [82]. DC T•C 15:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it. No need to take any action besides adding the "notavote" template, which has been done. Every single admin knows that the unhelpful votes are summarily ignored, without giving them any credence, so there's really no useful action to take. Anyone who shows up brand new, doesn't know anything about Wikipedia policy, and leaves an unhelpful comment is completely impotent in affecting the outcome of the AFD anyways. Other than warning or sanctioning the new users who make personal attacks or who are egregiously disruptive in some other way, there's nothing eles to do regarding the AFD. --Jayron32 15:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like Jehochman has closed the discussion per WP:IAR and WP:SNOW. Before the calls to desysop him for admin abuse and overreaching his authority start in, let me be the first to say that I completely, and 100% support the invocation of IAR in this case. Good close. --Jayron32 16:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I also strongly endorse the close as a straightforward and unambiguous application of WP:LINKFARM and WP:ENC. I look forward with grim dismay to the navel-gazing, hand-wringing, and accusation-hurling that will follow in the utterly unnecessary but still inevitable DRV. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Hah. Where's my pitchfork? (Only kidding. Endorse closure.) --John (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the purpose of IAR is to provoke drama then it was invoked correctly here. DuncanHill (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

What's the alternative? It's not terribly productive to let a messy debate like that run its course when the outcome is certain. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

For what its worth I alse agree that closing it was the right thing to do. This isn't the right place to have a pile of links that change and move anyway. If I had admin rights I would have done the same thing. --Kumioko (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Also perhaps keep an eye on User:A41202813@GMAIL.COM? Edit: nvm. Just realized he was blocked - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 17:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The last version of the article was completely different from the one I originally created. It could no longer be construed to be a linkfarm. I'll start a deletion review process when I have time (I encourage someone else to do this)... Count Iblis (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Collapsed linkfarms are still linkfarms. T. Canens (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That collapsed part could be removed from the article. The editor who rewrote the article even proposed that it be removed. I would not have opposed that as I agree that the main domain names are sufficient. Count Iblis (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Suicide threat

Thanks everyone, the Foundation is on it. Christine Moellenberndt, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

In this diff, User:204.81.127.132 says "I actually wish i was dead. This is my suicide note. Good bye cruel world." I have no other information on the veracity of the claim, but wish to bring this to notice to the proper authorities. Alansohn (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC) I've just e-mailed WMF about it, they usually handle this sort of thing. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) Appears to be from an IP registered to the New Brunswick Department of Education in Canada - Amog | Talk • contribs 18:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) I note from WHOIS that the IP is registered to the New Brunswick Department of Education, and I've added a {{sharedipedu}} to the IP talk page. So is 204.81.127.125 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), also messing about on the same article (Consumption tax). The "suicidal" IP's previous edit, 2 minutes earlier was this, suggesting childish vandal, not genuine suicide threat. BencherliteTalk 18:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC) Probably a vandal. In these cases it is best to notify WMF and email (if possible, try not to call) the relevant police dept. to file a report --Errant (chat!) 18:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict × 3) That's likely, but it's best to err on the side of caution and let WMF handle it. In many cases childish vandals like these get a sudden wake-up call when WMF contacts their local police and they contact them. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC) I'd take it more seriously if it was the New Brunswick in New Jersey. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC) I am with Giftiger, probably a vandal, but best to let WMF know just in case. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC) Thanks everyone, we're on it. FYI, you can email emergencywikimedia.org to get in touch with the Foundation quickly in situations like this. Christine Moellenberndt, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Extra Eyes needed on Air France Flight 4590

The Concorde Disaster. Continental Airlines was found criminally liable for the accident this morning, and this is currently on the main page as in the news. The exposure has led to a large number of constructive IP address edits, as well as a few IP address vandalisms. Semi-protection would be a bad thing in this circumstance. Extra eyes please to keep the rubbish down. N419BH 18:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This is likely just the beginning. Continental's position is that they got screwed by a biased French court system, so this could turn into a major soap opera. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe pending changes protection? HalfShadow 22:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That should certainly be considered. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Campaign of defamation against GEROVA Financial Group, Ltd.

Resolved

 – through intervention from OTRS. ANy questions, please contact me.

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Please help. There appears to be an organised campaign of defamation against a NYSE company, GEROVA Financial Group, Ltd. (NYSE: GFC). The following pages are being attacked:

GEROVA Financial Group, Ltd. Robert V. Willison Jason Galanis

The posters are placing false and defamatory information regarding GEROVA on these pages. I have tried removing the information several times, but the spammers just re-post the false information within a minute. I do not know how to use Wikipedia. Please help! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliptis (talk • contribs) 19:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

There's edit warring and 24 hour full protection at GEROVA Financial Group. The problem seems to be that someone posted cited information that the company does not like. Neither party in the edit war is posting on the article's talk page. Looking around, the edit warriors haven't done their homework. The big news about Gerova is that the New York Stock Exchange is considering delisting them.[83]. I'll put some notes on the talk page and check out the references. This is a content dispute in which both parties are being too heavy-handed. --John Nagle (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

When I checked Brooklyner (talk · contribs), it appears that he's editwarring negative undersourced information into multiple BLPs, so I've blocked him for 48 hours. I urge all remaining parties to actually use the talk pages over the next couple of days. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if wp:note is an issue. Pretty sure Jason Galanis holds up, but I'm not so sure about Gerova and Willison. There might be a speedy solution to this problem. The Eskimo (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

GEROVA Financial Group is on the New York Stock Exchange (unless they get delisted), and there are articles in major publications about it, so it probably passes WP:CORP. Robert V. Willison doesn't seem to be too notable, though. Can't find him in Google News, he has little web presence, the Wikipedia article has little content, and the article is one day old. Speedy deletion might be appropriate, but I'd suggest "prod". We'll all be here next week. --John Nagle (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The same two people, Brooklyner (talk · contribs) and Eliptis (talk · contribs) are also edit warring at Jason Galanis, who is CEO of Gerova. One has been blocked, and the other warned that they're close to a block. Both editors seem to have very narrow editing interests. Mainstream sources like Forbes [84] support much of the negative info about Gerova and the people behind it. The father of the CEO did federal prison time for various frauds between 1973 and 1998, for example, and appears to have influence in the son's businesses. We have to be cautious because of WP:BLP concerns, but there are reliable sources for most (not all) of the negative info. What this article needs is more editors with broader financial interests. I'll try to do some cleanup when the article unlocks. --John Nagle (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Note that, for example, Brooklyner states "His early childhood was difficult because of his father's conviction of a massive $400 million dollar fraud.[85]" While the conviction is borne out by the source, the "early childhood was difficult" is not. He also claims that "Jason Galanis is probably best known as Porn's New King for his involvement with IBill and Penthouse"; while the provided source uses that term, it's not indicated that it's what he's known for. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I've discussed the content issues at Talk:GEROVA Financial Group. Content discussion should go there. Some help from finance experts would be appreciated. Is there a noticeboard for financial topics? --John Nagle (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a side note. I was the first admin to come across this. Two editors, each blanket reverting the other back and forth for a couple of hours before I came across it, across three articles. I issued the warnings, and locked down all three pages in question for 6 hours. (Not 24, as was mentioned above.) We appeared to have two editors who were not familiar with WP policies and procedures, so at the time warnings seemed worth a try as opposed to blocks. But both were well over 3RR. The 6 hour protection was also to bring the reverting to a halt, and hopefully get some discussion going. At about the same time as I was acting, one of the parties was reporting at WP:BLPN, and (s)he started this ANI thread soon after. As I said at the BLPN report, I'm not able to follow the situation as closely as it may warrant, so I have no problem with any other admin taking actions in the matter without first consulting me. Do be aware, as the page protections are only for 6 hours, there's the potential for this all to flare right back up in a few hours if the participants decide to ignore the issued warnings. And again I will likely not be around at that time to jump back in. One of the parties being 48 hour blocked now, as mentioned above, may prevent that.

Anyway, I just wanted to lay out my part/views in this situation. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Mangochiboy

This user is inserting fake billionaires, fake yacht owners, and fake recycling companies rather like two anon IPs last week. For example:

• [86] no such company
• [87] no such company
• [88] no such company or chairman
• [89]

and others. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Limbeone seems to be related. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:SPI time? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked both indef as vandalism-only accounts, but I don't see any harm in looking for additional socks. Looie496 (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

 Confirmed the following accounts are the same:

Mangochiboy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Limbeone (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Truthtell9986 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Malawiboy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Sherwoodexports (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Arielexports (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Seekandyoushallfind (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) TNXMan 03:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

User OBrasilo and HWDP article

Resolved

 – No policy violation

I have a problem with user OBrasilo and his HWDP article. The article is about a blatant ad hominem attack slogan against polish police, even i can understand that with my minimal knowledge of polish. His article is DISRUPTING wikipedia and is not even in the least appropriate to kids. Please note ad hominem attacks are against the rules of Wikipedia and I think so are articles about ad hominem attacks. Please take action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatSter21 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

What the heck? The article is pretty fine by Wikipedia rules, there is NOT rule or guideline on this encyclopedia about articles regarding attack slogans. There is an article on the Final solution, as well as on ACAB, the English-language counterpart to HWDP. There are even articles on racist organizations such as Ku-Klux-Klan. So PatSter21's argument holds no weight IMHO. - OBrasilo (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

No its not fine. The guidelines clearly say no ad hominem attacks. I think its pretty obvious this also includes areticles about ad hominem attacks. Also, FCC law says no profanity during protected hours, and this encyclopedia is visible at those times so profanity on it is against FCC law. And yes I think ACAB, fuck and other articles containing profanity or attack slogans should be banned too but Ill come to these after HWDP is removed. One at the time is the best way to deal with problems.

It may surprise you to learn that Wikipedia is not censored. the wub "?!" 21:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Well then Wikipedia isnt doing its homework well. There are kids reading Wikipedia. Including my own. I do NOT want them to learn bad things about countries such as this kind of filthy slogans but only good things. Please understand my concerns as a parent. PatSter21 (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The idea that having a rule against personal attacks implies a rule against referring to personal attacks elsewhere is, frankly, bizarre. And as for your plan to overturn the policy that Wikipedia is not censored, I think you are going to have a lot of work to do if you want to get consensus for that. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Uh, if personal attacks are forbidden, then theyre forbidden everywhere, incl. in quotes, dont you think? And profanity during protected hours is against United States FCC law. As a proud US parents, I am very concerned about it. My kid told me today he learnt about this "bad Polish slogan" from Wikipedia. I knew about it because Im a regular on various German sites where this gets mentioned on a daily basis but I never expected a public service encyclopedia such as Wikipedia to have articles on such filth. Obviusly I felt the need to intervene, also becuase this is against FCC law too so its for Wikipedias own good as well. Please understand Im simply trying to help you as a parent and Proud United States citizen. PatSter21 (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

There is simply no policy violation, period. We have articles about a wide range of topics ranging from sexual acts to well-known profane words and phrases. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:NPA only applies to dealings with other editors, not articles about racial epithets, sexual slurs, or other various insults. Also, the Internet - not just Wikipedia, but the internet en generale - does not fall under FCC protection for "watershed" hours. If it did, Stormfront and 4chan would not exist. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 21:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I agree with JamesBWatson. Wikipedia is a place for research and not a place for censorship. Like the saying goes, knowledge is power. If certain things get censored, governments etc can become more powerful because they know the fine print, whereas we wouldn't. I disagree with PatSter21 because kids will pick this stuff up at some point and anyway, what sort of child will come here on Wikipedia searching for those kinds of things? Ouensu-san (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia has (or should have) no original research. In reality it's just a collection of data that is already published and widely available.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like original research to me. Without a source that discusses the subject in the same general terms as the article, it should probably go. This has nothing to do with it's content however. There are many articles on Wikipedia which will be considered inappropriate for children, which is why they should be supervised properly. It is not a reason to censor it though: the policy is clearly laid out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Need somebody with Oversight powers

Resolved

I need somebody with Oversight powers to remove the visibility of an edit, but I don't know who to contact to do so. Are there any people around who can help? I know that I am not supposed to post the link of the edit here. Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for oversight tells you the quickest ways to reach someone. the wub "?!" 21:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the quick response; I've fired off an email to them. Melicans (talk, contributions) 21:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Gone, and thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Images loaded by User:ShortstopVM being deleted by User:AuntieDa as "stolen"

User:AuntieDa has been editing a series of articles related to baseball players claiming that User:ShortstopVM has improperly claimed copyright on these images. I'm not sure of what the correct avenue is to address these image issues, but running through articles one by one and removing the images from articles is probably not the best way to deal with the issue, assuming it's genuine. What is the appropriate way of proceeding on this one by User:AuntieDa to get the image ownership issue resolved one way or the other on a global basis? Note that ShortstopVM is already under a lengthy blok; the issue is the images. Alansohn (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Have we identified originals for any of these images? Since ShortstopVM claims on her userpage to be a journalism student, it's not out of the question for her to be taking really good shots. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

User:VernoWhitney would be a good person to ask; he's the one who just blocked ShortstopVM for copyright violations, deleted at least one of the images AuntieDa is complaining about because it came from the site she said it did, and removed it from an article. He also appears to be a go-to person for image copyright questions. I suspect the solution is going to be much like what AuntieDa wanted to do: deleted the images and remove/replace them in their respective articles. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

An image like this[90] probably shouldn't be up for deletion, though: who owns the copyright to that one? Her friend that took it for her? It's only on her userpage, no less. I'd be interested to know why this[91] happened to that image: seems like overkill (to a passerby)... Doc talk 22:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

So it appears that ShortstopVM has been uploading a series of baseball images from a copyrighted webpage and the owner has now complained in Ticket:2010120810024114; I imagine that any other editors removing the images from articles were informed of the same information somehow. As to Doc9871's point: I'm not going to get into the gory details here, but the photgrapher of an image in the United States is always the copyright holder unless that copyright is transfered by contract or other force of law - having your picture taken by a friend or a random passerby doesn't mean that you have the copyright. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

To expand on the above, I believe I've now deleted all of their copyvio images which were still present locally; most of them have been transferred to commons where I've tagged all but a couple for speedy deletion as copyvio since I've confirmed the sources and I'm still working on the last two. If someone is interested in a more detailed explanation about the permissions situation that Doc9871 mentioned, I'd appreciate it if it's brought up at my talk page since I don't frequent this page - I just noticed the ANI notice for ShortstopVM. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Doc, WP:NOTWEBHOST. I don't see any encyclopedic reason to keep that image. Tell ShortstopVM try flickr or imageshack for personal photo hosting. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

@IP - There's a few administrators on here that have pictures of themselves on their userpages: I can think of three just off the top of my head. A gallery of personal pictures, or even several, I definitely can agree with you on (and she did have a bunch): but one identifying image on a userpage is not an issue that I can see. I went to VernoWhitney's talk page for the greater copyright issue raised, as suggested... ;> Doc talk 00:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

hoax vandalism from 2006 under multiple IP addresses just coming to light

Please see discussion at User:Rursus/star_name_desinformation#Hamalain and above, also my talk page. Scores of IP addresses are implicated in adding spurious names to star and constellation articles, mostly Oct 2006 - Feb 2007. Rursus is trying to clean it up. However, the editor has also contributed to many other topics, such as botany, and we aren't looking into those. Could probably use some outside help. — kwami (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Out of process admin-speedy-delete by User:RHaworth

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

WP:FORUMSHOP. Please keep this in one place. --Jayron32 05:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Main page: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 9 § Litton Industries bombing

• LikeJudasOfOld (talk · contribs)
• BeowulfMacCool (talk · contribs)

RHaworth speedy-deleted Litton Industries bombing, an article about the bombing hailed as the first terrorist bombing in Canada in 1982, falsely claiming it was a duplicate of Squamish Five from which it was a valid WP:FORK. I'd like the article to be reinstated and would appreciate if somebody could explain to the administrator that he is not to simply delete things that were just created ten minutes' prior and had a dozen edits improving the article as well as a meta-note that the article was under construction, about a valid historical event. My attempt to speak to him on his talkpage resulted in a brusque "I don't care, enable eMail on your account" which is likewise aggravating. When the other editor (not me) who was working on the article also contacted RHaworth to ask that the article be un-speedied (and suggested that he could pursue traditional deletion if he wished), he simply accused the other editor of being my sockpuppet. LikeJudasOfOld (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

As a note, he deleted it based on A10, which says "A recently created article with no relevant page history that duplicates an existing English Wikipedia topic, and that does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject, and where the title is not a plausible redirect. This does not include split pages."

Clearly this article, a split page with a substantial page history considering it was created only 20 minutes earlier and had 20 improvements by two authors, and substantially expanded on the small paragaraph in the Squamish Five article by writing an entire article on the bombing...did not qualify for Speedy. DRV does not need to decide whether or not it deserves to live, it just needs to restore the page and let any user who wants it deleted find a valid reason to propose their idea. But deleting out-of-process without reason is not what WP is about. LikeJudasOfOld (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Tit for tat deletion nominations

• Mohammad Reza Taheri (AfD discussion)
• Bahram Soroush (AfD discussion)
• DrPhosphorus (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)

After Mani Nouri (AfD discussion) was nominated for deletion with the rationale "Fails WP:ENT", DrPhosphorus, an account seemingly created to argue for keeping in that AFD discussion, has been going around nominating other Iran-related biographies for deletion as "Fails WP:ENT". These are all incomplete nominations, and I spotted them first as such. I was going to roll the nominations forward, adding the missing step, until I noticed the pattern. This seems like simple tit-for-tat disruption. Uncle G (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• In regards to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Reza Taheri, what to do? One editor has already commented, and the article looks very deletable. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Just recently, I have decided to be provide constructive help in wiki. It is a bold assumption that the existence of my account and my activities only serve to save an article. My deletion nominations for Mohammad Reza Taheri (AfD discussion) and Bahram Soroush (AfD discussion) are in neither arbitrary nor emotional. Both persons as far as I know, are unrelated to each other and also unrelated to Mani Nouri. Thus, the term "tit for tat" is really inappropriate for this case. Back to reality, both nominated articles lack references and the persons are not notable enough. There exist not even one international reliable reference for them. No books, no newspaper articles... The tv shows etc are just like a self-made webpage and in my opinion as reference of no value. The article on Mohammad Reza Taheri (AfD discussion) provide vague information on a person with no significant achievements. He is just a "researcher" in one of the least accredited universities in Iran. Why does he deserve a biographical article in wiki? Uncle G made some strong allegations against me and my activities based on no real facts. If I was him, I would wait a few days, observe the activities, recognize a pattern and then go public. Currently, he just made wrong accusations and I think either he proves that my intention was to disrupt or he apologizes. DrPhosphorus (talk) 07:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough

Per User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough#Smack_bot_complaint and much previous, it is apparent that enforcement of the Wikipedia:Editing restrictions placed on Rich (per this) are not working; even though I blocked him for 24 hours a couple of weeks ago for violating them, issues continue, and Rich appears increasingly resistant to taking them seriously. I have drifted unofficially into monitoring the restrictions, and at this point I feel it needs wider discussion (again). Obviously it is difficult to deal with an issue with such a prolific contributor - nobody wants to lose the vast stacks of very necessary edits made. But it's well established that good contributions don't excuse poor behaviour, and the plentiful slack Rich has had in sorting things out so that the restrictions are properly respected is surely exhausted; besides which he's now calling an editor a "troll".

So - what to do? Set a deadline for full compliance? Mentoring? Someone to look at his code? Adjust the restrictions (if Rich has a suggestion)? Give up on the restrictions and let him do what he thinks is best? Something else? Rd232 ^talk 00:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The bot misbehaved, and now it's blocked. So why not just keep the bot blocked until the issues are satisfactorily addressed? --Bsherr (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Because (a) that's already happened before and didn't work and (b) whilst the bot was blocked, Rich started doing the bot's work using AWB on his main account, still with errors. Rd232 ^talk 01:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Lets clarify that these were not so much errors as they were a difference of opinion. Whats in debate here I believe is Rich performing insignficant edits using his main account and his bot via AWB. These edits include removing spaces and changing some lower case characters to upper case. While these are unnecessary and insignificant they are not errors per say. Some editors feel that he and his bot should operate in a flawless manner and everytime he strays and does one of these there are 2 or three editors that bombard his talk page. Although I agree that some of his edits are not needed I also don't believe they are inherently harmful and the majority of the time his edits are ok. The editors also noted that they find it annoying when their watchlists fill up with these insignificant edits. As I mentioned to them, I can understand their logic on the difference of opinion edits but I am not concerned with the filling up of watchlists and this is not a good argument. --Kumioko (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

R.F. is certainly aware that he has an edit restriction about this. It's boggling why he hasn't addressed the problem given the huge amount of scrutiny the bot has been receiving. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Fram is a pain. I have emailed them asking them to leave me alone, weeks ago, with no response. There are many other editors and admins who are quite willing to come to my talk page and raise issues, and I am willing to work with, not least Rd232. Fram can realistically find something else to do. I have assumed that Fram has good intentions, but according to WP:DUCK I am beginning to doubt that. Onward and upward! Rich Farmbrough, 01:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC).
  
  • Not for the first time, you're blaming others from problems they didn't create. Postulate that Fram had emailed me every problematic edit and not posted to your talk page in a month; how would things be any different? Rd232 ^talk 01:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I ran into the same problems before Rd232. For a time I tried informing R.F. and blocking the bot when it went awry. After a while I gave up (perhaps I am not so sharp, and it took me too long), because R.F. simply didn't make a visible effort to keep the bot bug-free. Problems that were "fixed" would reoccur regularly. I have no intention of being involved in any administrative capacity with the bot again. However, I can confirm the pattern that Rd232 is seeing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You know full well, or should do, that it is only because of your insistence, that I am using a hacked version of AWB, which impacts on the latest fixes - and of course exacerbates other minor problems. And this is because you have a fixation with ref numbering that has I believe been dealt with off in some talk page. Keeping things simple is an engineering principle that seems to have passed many by. Rich Farmbrough, 01:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC).

The AWB devs have explained to you how to use customized general fixes with the newest versions of AWB. Also it is possible to disable general fixes entirely. But the reordering is only one issue. The CURRENTMONTHAME bug occured over and over, and the ongoing problems with minor edits. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the right place to discuss this. The discussion should be moved to WP:AN/I, if it's desired. --Bsherr (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The editing restriction discussion was here, and it's a long-term issue. Rd232 ^talk 01:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't this considered an incident? --Bsherr (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

disgusting personal attack (show button to the right)

Well you've got some fucking big-ass hairy balls, I'll give you that, edit warring with an admin about whether a thread belongs on AN or ANI. Rd232 ^talk 01:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Nah. It's WP:NOBIGDEAL. I'll start a thread on WT:AN, and we can get this all figured out. Either way, this shows the documentation needs improvement. --Bsherr (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the pattern of broken bot edits, there are also talk page posts such as this: "Yet again Fram succeeds in getting SmackBot blocked. Congratulations. Rich Farmbrough, 21:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)". — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and issue was discussed and closed. Fram sticks in a few spurious diffs and bam! It's a kind of passive aggression. Rich Farmbrough, 01:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC).

This isn't the right place to discuss that either. The discussion should be moved to WP:AN/I, if it's desired. --Bsherr (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

This is the administrators noticeboard - I think you can trust that if admin posts to it, it doesn't need your suggestion to move to ANI: somebody will move it if necessary. And no, it shouldn't be moved IMO, because the civility issues are minor, arising as a side effect of frustration from the main issue. Rd232 ^talk 01:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Richard makes lots of edits, he is one of the highest contributors to the site in terms of edit count. Few of his edits appear to be a problem. When the starting point of the problem is this edit then I'm of the view that there is no real issue and some grey area edits made in good faith should be ignored in light of the immense amount of edits Richard makes. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

OK guys, I'm not going through another AN/I. No. Not interested. Been there, done that wasted, 6 weeks of my life on it, and still trying to recover form the last one. Rich Farmbrough, 01:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC).

So now that we're here, let's determine whether this is really necessary. SmackBot was blocked. Has Rich subsequently made edits violating his editing restriction from his regular account? If so, has he been blocked? If not, why should we conclude the editing restriction is not working before it's had a chance to work? --Bsherr (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Well if you will insist on transferring a discussion about a long term issue to the noticeboard for short-term incidents, yeah, you'll ask questions as helpful as that. I should really block you for disruption. But I'm off to bed. Rd232 ^talk 01:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any distinction in the edit notice for what goes on each page between long-term and short-term. Perhaps you could educate me and then block me? And then block User:Access Denied too? --Bsherr (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• I don't feel there are any bugs; SmackBot and Rich's AWB code seems to be largely working as intended. There are just some edits that certain editors dislike, and they are pestering Rich to stop because they hate the 'pollution' on their watchlists. Somehow, they managed to have editing restrictions imposed, but much lies in the grey area of how one operates AWB without making any inconsequential edits at all. If general fixes were considered unnecessary, those complaining ought to take it up with the developers to have these removed outright. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The developers have already put in place a system to allow AWB bot operators to disable individual general fixes. R.F. has simply not made use of it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Well thats partially true. You can disable general fixes as a whole and several other things like typos but the only way I know of (and this may be wrong) is to build a custom module that calls the individual fix. This is extremely difficult (although Rich knows how to do it im sure) and is honestly more effort than its worth. Its better to live with the occassional minor edit. --Kumioko (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Creation of articles from leaked classified documents

Because this topic is relevant to almost every noticeboard, I'm posting a brief incident report here. meco (talk · contribs) and Wnt (talk · contribs) have been spearheading the creation of encyclopedia articles based on leaked classified documents from WikiLeaks, using the leaked cables to support the majority of the article. This was recently discussed at Talk:United_States_diplomatic cables leak#List of vital sites, with both meco and Wnt ignoring the points raised in that discussion. Wnt took this a step further, and created a new article, Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative, which is primarily based on a classified, February 2009 cable from the U.S. State Department that lists foreign installations and infrastructure considered critical to U.S. interests. U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said the information "gives a group like al-Qaeda a targeting list" and British prime minister David Cameron said the list damages the national security of the U.S., the U.K, and other countries. Because this list was uploaded from the classified leaked documents and lacks enough secondary sources for a standalone article, I redirected it to the United States Department of Homeland Security.[92] Wnt restored it soon after,[93] and I once again redirected it.[94] We have a problem that needs to be addressed by the community. Since the WikiLeaks cables are considered "raw data", they are primary sources. The content in question here has been described by the BBC as "one of the most sensitive",[95] and by CNN as "key to U.S. security".[96] According to meco and Wnt, this means Wikipedia must host an article on the subject and include classified content from leaked documents. I leave this matter for the community to decide, as this issue will continue to come up in the coming days as more documents are released. As Wikipedia editors, we need to show self-restraint and self-control when using leaked primary documents, and doubly so when we are dealing with leaked classified documents considered vital to global security. Viriditas (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Surely this is dealt with by WP:PRIMARY? Physchim62 (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I think Jimbo Wales and the Wikipedia legal team are looking into this. At least that is my reasonable guess. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

e/c The issues of "classified" and "leaked" and so on are irrelevant. For the most part at least, there's little doubt they're authentic. The problem is that they're primary sources -- and often consist only of ephemera (the views of a given foreign service officer, often quite junior, in one place and time). This makes them great stuff to be trolled through and synthesized by historians. Your average wikipedia editor? Not so much. But there's no need to reinvent the wikipedia wheel here. Treat them for what they are -- primary, non-peer reviewed sources. Which is to say, with great caution. Any article built entirely around these kinds of cables should be deleted on site. But judicious use of cables, properly attributed and handled by wikipedia's army of crack researchers, should be ok.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

There's also a COPYVIO problem, at least at Talk:United_States_diplomatic cables leak#List of vital sites: close paraphrasing of the BBC which exceeds acceptable levels (even for me, and I'm usually quite cool about such things). Physchim62 (talk) 03:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The redirect requires deletion. The immediacy of this issue requires further clarification by the community because it is going to keep happening over the next month. Obviously, we are here to write articles based on secondary sources, but Wnt is trying to get around this by briefly quoting a secondary to support the creation of a stub, and then filling the majority of the article up with content directly from the leaked, classified documents. In my opinion, Wnt (and others) are purposefully trying to game the policies and guidelines to write articles based solely on classified documents. That's why this requires administrator attention. Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes that sort of thing is a problem and should not be tolerated. However, it's not only tolerated, it's supported, every day here. Wikipedia supports the invention of fake "topics." Go no.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

This isn't "gaming the system", but following the rules. An article has to have sources to meet the general notability guideline. So I came up with several such sources - more are easily available - and used some sources published by the agency that created the CFDI, and used a definitive primary source. This primary source in turn provides numerous search terms to find more secondary sources. Right now, people all over the world are writing news stories about many of the specific sites listed in this cable - about what was meant, whether it was out of date, what it's importance is. The primary source lets us find these sources and compile that expert analysis from secondary sources that people here say they value so highly. Wnt (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• The cables are PRIMARY. Articles written from PRIMARY sources are SYNTHESIS and ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Warn the editors; Speedy or AFD the articles depending on current deletions policy. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The leaked documents are leaked! Even if it was Wikipedia's responsibility to safeguard U.S. security (and it isn't), it is too late for that. They are however primary sources however, and should be treated as such - at best as a source for quotes to add a bit of colour to proper reporting of what reliable secondary sources say. Anything else is likely to be OR from people perhaps a little over-enthusiastic with their interpretation. This isn't our job either. Topics need good verifiable secondary sources to justify creation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Writers do have ethical obligations in every field, and in an encyclopedia, the policies and guidelines are based on such obligations: Why should we use reliable sources? Why should we be careful writing about BLP's? Why do we care about a NPOV? These are all ethical problems requiring responsibility, self-control and restraint. As I said in the discussion linked above, we're not here to write articles in the vein of The Anarchist Cookbook. Viriditas (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

As a Brit, I have no more 'ethical problems' with dealing with this in a neutral manner than I would if the leaks came from anywhere else, but this is beside the point. Nothing written in Wikipedia is going to alter the fact that the documents 'have' been leaked. If we report this issue in a responsible manner (i.e. using verifiable secondary sources), nothing will appear that isn't out there already. Even if the odd bit of 'primary' were to be included in an article, this isn't releasing anything that isn't already known. I think it highly likely that anyone intent on using the leaked documents for hostile purposes will acquire their own copies, rather than looking for snippets on Wikipedia. I think are normal policy (properly applied) is quite adequate - though perhaps we need to remind people about BLP policy on naming non-notable people, if for no reason than that is ignored too often anyway. The 'Anarchist Cookbook' issue seems a bit of a red herring to me, as 'articles in the vein of' it would violate WP:NPOV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

In any case WP:HOWTO covers the case of The Anarchist Cookbook! Well, it used to... Physchim62 (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, the red herring here is the notion that because "the documents have been leaked", there's nothing we can do. That isn't true. We only write encyclopedia articles based on good secondary sources, and we do so carefully and with good judgment. Just as we don't tell people how to make weapons or hack into the Pentagon, we don't provide them with a classified list of sensitive installations and say, "do with it what you will, it is out of our hands, we're just Wikipedia editors." What you are forgetting is that WikiLeaks provides these documents to journalists, who do have ethical obligations and are supposed to be professionals. The raw data was not meant for use by Wikipedia editors who may not, and who in your case, refuse to recognize and accept this great responsibility because of a refusal to act professionally. We've got the ethical foundation in the policies and guidelines, and nothing in them says we write articles with an attitude of "well, that's that, it is out of my hands, I don't care." Just the opposite, in fact. Why do we care about accuracy? Why do we care about getting BLP's right? Why do we care about copyright? Viriditas (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Half the pintards out there think Wikileaks and this site are linked; let's not give them any more fuel. HalfShadow 03:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Viriditas: I'll not comment on whether I rate the ethics of the average journalist any higher than the average Wikipedia editor, but I will point out that you are wrong about access to the Wikileaks documents. Anyone can download them. As for your comments about me refusing to recognise responsibilities, I consider it unworthy of response as a gross distortion of what I wrote. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The stuff released by WikiLeaks has been vetted to make sure it can't do any damage to lives of people. What is now going on is that the US government is finding herself in the same boat as e.g. the Chinese government is in when issues regarding dissidents/Tibet etc. are raised. They will invoke national security as a real life version of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Count Iblis (talk) 04:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I know; funny as hell, innit? HalfShadow 04:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That is 100% not the issue. The issue is that this is basicly a bunch of unfiltered emails (i know, "cables", whatever, same thing). You can't source a Wikipedia article to a bunch of unfiltered emails. The reason we don't allow primary sources like this to be the main source of references for an article is that there is no analysis of those sources. Wikipedia cannot be the first place of analysis. If as person wanted to, they could simply cherrypick specific cables to use as references and build a case to "prove" anything they wanted to in a Wikipedia article. We don't do that here. Its not the role of Wikipedia. It is the role of reliable secondary sources like newspapers, magazines, peer-reviewed journals, or respectable book-publishing scholars to weed through these cables and then report on what they find. Only after someone else, outside of Wikipedia, has assigned meaning to these cables should that information be used in a Wikipedia article. Right now, its a bunch of unfiltered communications and none of us has any idea what ANY of it means. So we shouldn't use it in articles, period. When the BBC does a major piece on some aspect of something they found, and researched, and checked into, and confirmed, and THEN reported on; we use the BBC source. But not before that. --Jayron32 04:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Normal policy applies. No synthesis. Use WP:RS, Work within WP:BLP (for a change...) If some idiot wants to compile a list of 'potential terrorist targets' using the cables, it won't get on Wikipedia, not because it is a 'security threat' (which it is unlikely to be, for the reasons already given), but because it isn't acceptable content. End of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• All of our normal policies should apply here. For there to be individual articles on any of the specific documents leaked by Wikileaks, there needs to be a certain amount of significant coverage in secondary sources about those documents. However, on the other side of the field, if there are enough secondary sources to qualify an article for inclusion as a stand-alone article, arguments based on it being about classified material are irrelevant. Once released by a source, classified material becomes public. The source in this case is Wikileaks. Once released, the material is free to be used by both newspapers and any other group, since it has devolved to public information upon its release.

To summarize: articles need enough secondary sources to qualify under our policies and guidelines. If a topic does qualify, arguments for deletion of said articles because they are classified information should be considered irrelevent. Silverseren^C 04:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to note that reprinting any material that is in the "cables" released could be possibly be covered under the Espionage_Act_of_1917 and could lead to repercussions against Wikipedia. All editors should be careful to not jeopardize the project in such a way. No matter who all has done so before it could still be done on a case by case basis and people and organizations fined and/or jailed if it is determined to be. The Espionage Act has already been upheld to not violate First Amendment rights of free speech since it involves the act itself, not necessarily the material. And reproducing classified material wouldnt be justified just by saying "well, they did it too". I dont know where the whole WikiLeaks thing is going to go, but I dont think we should get involved in any way with it. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Ooh! Scary legal threat. Edison (talk) 06:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works. The original releasing agent of the material is liable for the "damage" caused by its release. The releasing agent in this case is Wikileaks. Thus, the government is entirely able to sue and/or prosecute Wikileaks under the Espionage Act. However, since Wikipedia has nothing to do with Wikileaks, we are not in liability with them. Furthermore, like I said above, once information is released by an agent, that material then becomes public and other sources that utilize that material are not liable for holding and/or re-releasing it. This is why newspapers and other news sources are able to discuss and re-release the classified information, because they are a secondary agent that had the information after it was made public. It falls under the First Amendment of the Constitution, namely, freedom of the press. And, because Wikipedia uses news reports to make our article, making us a tertiary source, we also fall under freedom of the press and are that much more removed from the original documents. If the government had the audacity to try and prosecute Wikipedia, it would also have to prosecute every news agency that ever made an in-depth news report on the documents, since it is their information that we are utilizing for our articles. Silverseren^C 04:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not give legal advice. Please don't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I was expecting to argue this issue at AfD, not ANI. We haven't even had time to properly start an edit war! I must strongly object to the continual bait-and-switch between policy issues and legal issues on this topic. There is nothing illegal about discussing "classified" information that has been widely disseminated on web and news sites all over the world. So then we get into arguments about "primary sources" - but those are policy arguments, which at most would be used to try to excuse specific changes within the article. And when those run out, we run into "ethical" arguments. But I'd like to know what kind of ethics it that demands us to pretend that we are protecting secret information, at the expense of actually abandoning WP:NOTCENSORED like it was yesterday's news.

Now as for specifics, I should point out, that in the article I created, I have secondary news sources as well as the primary source; and the secondary sources attest to the apparent authenticity of the primary source. Now some people on Wikipedia, especially when they're trying to promote a point of view, like to disparage primary sources; nonetheless, there is nothing that gives a person a better idea of what is in a list of things than the list itself. And do note that the primary source (the 2008 Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative list) is being used as a source about itself, which is the most kosher use for such a source. Wnt (talk) 04:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's suspend legal and ethical issues for the moment. Please read WP:PRIMARY; it will explain everything. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY would be useful if only primary sources had been used in the article being discussed. However, as can be seen], there were secondary sources involved. Only a few, admittedly, but that means that it should have been taken to AfD. A redirect edit war was not the way to go. Silverseren^C 05:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll add that my article is about the "Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative". The primary source that I cite contains text that identifies itself, as confirmed by secondary sources, as the "Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative (CFDI) list". So I am using this primary source as a statement about itself. I fully understand that there are very problematic uses of the cables as primary sources - for example, the widely disseminated news stories that China wouldn't mind if South Korea took over North Korea, based on a leaked cable which quotes a South Korean defense minister stating that opinion. But that's not what I did here. Wnt (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I think one of the other issues is that the secondary coverage isn't really solid enough to warrant a stand-alone article. Of course, like i've been saying, that means that it should have been taken to AfD, not just automatically redirected. Silverseren^C 05:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Agenda driven editing is not good, unless the agenda is to create high-quality encyclopedic content. If editors are out to make a WP:POINT by creating lots of original research articles based largely on primary sources, not only should those articles be deleted, but the editors causing massive disruption in that way ought to be blocked. Editing in such a volume as to win a dispute by overwhelming the other side, in contravention of policy, is strictly prohibited. Jehochman ^Talk 04:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I'm being addressed by Jehochman above, so I'll specify I don't think that I'm the one trying to "win a dispute by overwhelming the other side" when I make up a new article. I feel like I'm the one being overwhelmed by accusations of policy violations, being unethical, and being threatened that the ancient legal evil that attacked Eugene Debs has crawled out of Lake Totenkopf and is about to start chasing Wikipedia editors. And the agenda foremost on my mind when creating the list section of the article was to take a confusing jumble of unfamiliar terms and convert it into a sea of pretty blue Wikilinks so that you could look up and understand all the sites and networks of pipelines and cables. I should be a poor inclusionist if I did not observe, by the way, that due to unreasonably restrictive standards, Wikipedia's coverage of corporations is so poor that even many corporations identified by the U.S., a foreign country in their lands, as critical to the U.S. economy, have not been deemed worthy to have their own Wikipedia articles. I'll also say there is nothing shameful about an agenda of using the cables to add facts to Wikipedia articles. We've just been handed a treasure trove of inside information such as the world has rarely seen. Yeah, it should have been kept secret, but it wasn't, and now we have new information about all kinds of topics. That's as conventional of an encyclopedic agenda as there is, and it is also as radical as Wikileaks: because the premise of SIPRNet is that 1 in 500 people is entitled to know the truth, and the rest aren't. Wnt (talk) 05:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

To say something about your statement "I'll also say there is nothing shameful about an agenda of using the cables to add facts to Wikipedia articles." What you are doing by adding things straight from the cables to articles is to confuse data with analysis. As they stand right now, the cables are basically raw data. We have no idea what they mean. Random statements taken from those cables, out of context from the entire situation that generated them, serves no purpose at Wikipedia. What needs to be done is someone who knows what they are doing, and is an expert in either investigative journalism or international relations or both needs to sit down with the cables, sort through them and generate a reliable story that lets us know exactly what they mean and can explain why they think that. Wikipedia is not the place to do that. When John Doe in a cable says something, I don't know what he means. I don't know what its in response to, I don't know how it relates to other parts of the world the cable refers to, but is not covered by this current data dump. I don't know shit. I know he said what he said, but I have no means to put it into context such that I can extract meaning from it enough to use it appropriately in a Wikipedia article. THAT is why we need secondary sources. Secondary sources do the hard work necessary to provide the context necessary to extract meaning from primary sources. The cables themselves are useless until they are analyzed. --Jayron32 06:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The primary source was not being used to interpret anything in the article. It was being used to source a list of infrastructures. See my response below. Silverseren^C 06:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

However, we're discussing a single article that was created that did have some secondary sourcing. The question I have is why the article wasn't taken to AfD. The efforts by Viriditas to redirect it seem to be against policy. Silverseren^C 05:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

People often mistake "Articles for deletion" as a delete/keep only discussion, when there are other options such as redirection. This is probably covered more broadly at ANI. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest we (or rather you - I'm off to bed) stick to discussing the general principle here, rather than getting drawn into debates over specific articles. As I see it, since those advocating 'restraint' are really only suggesting that we don't engage in OR, and the majority of remaining comments are saying much the same thing, we are close to consensus anyway: Work within policy, properly applied. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem may lie within the interpretation of said policy, rather than the policy itself or the work involved in applying it. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with that, but it also stands to reason that policy was not followed by Viriditas. The whole edit war of redirection, unredirection, and redirection should have never happened. I put more blame on Viriditas for this because s/he should have followed policy and taken the article to AfD. Silverseren^C 05:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

<Undent>My two cents: WP:Primary and WP:BLPPRIMARY could usefully be edited to prevent use of primary sources that could reasonably put people in physical danger, even if those primary sources are available elsewhere. BLPPRIMARY already says: "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." So why do that but allow use of secret records that could get people killed?Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

See my comments above. The reason we don't use primary sources isn't because they are secret or harmful. Its because, without the acompanying analysis provided by secondary sources, we have no way to assign meaning to things that are in primary sources. Secondary sources (news outlets, scholars, things like that) will read through the cables, analyze them, work with other known information to construct a story about what they all mean, verify their story, confirm it independently, and THEN report it. That sort of work is what is needed before we can use information. Raw data (and that's all the leaked cables are) isn't of much use to anyone unless we can put the raw data into context. We can't put them into context ourselves, that's the textbook definition of WP:OR. We wait for someone reliable to do the work to put them into context, then we report what THEY find. That's why we don't use primary sources. It has nothing to do with rights, or privacy, or secrecy, or liability. Its all about the core purpose and values of Wikipedia. This is a WP:5P issue and nothing else. --Jayron32 06:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

However, like i've been saying above, the article did have secondary sources, so this continued throwing around of WP:PRIMARY is unfounded. If you actually look at the article, you'd see that the primary source was only being used to source the list of infrastructures. ALL of the other sources in the article were secondary. Silverseren^C 06:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm still talking in the general, not the specific. If your article doesn't meet the problems I laid out, then I'm not talking about you. People, however, keep trying to say that these cables are somehow useful to Wikipedia. They aren't. They are next to worthless until someone else comes along and tells us what they all mean. Insofar as you have found someone that did that, you may be OK. (I am not saying that your secondary sources are good, and I am not saying they are bad, I am just saying, you know!). The problem is that people are expressing the belief that the cables themselves are good sources for Wikipedia articles. --Jayron32 06:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:Primary: "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia....."

Jayron32: "we don't use primary sources."

Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, we don't use primary sources to build an article around. Primary sources are useful in limited ways. For example, if we have an article about, say, an important chemical process, while the main text of the article is cited to reliable chemistry texts which discuss the process and its applications, it is quite appropriate to also include the primary publication that introduced the reaction as a supplemental source. Likewise, using the cables as supplemental references in articles which are reliably sourced to good, solid secondary sources may be appropriate. However, the use of the cables as the sole or main source to build an article is a bad idea. You conveniently left out of your quote from WP:PRIMARY above "...but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." and later " Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources." (bolding original). The problem is claiming that the cables can be used to write Wikipedia articles. They cannot. They can be used to supplement articles in very limited application. --Jayron32 07:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Some cables are primary sources, essentially telegrams from an individual official back to Washington. But others are "scenesetters" compiled by a group of embassy personnel to brief a visiting high-level official. These seem comparable to a secondary source in nature. Whether primary or secondary, they will often turn out to be useful - for example, a quote from a foreign politician will often be quite informative in itself, without further explanation, simply as an insight into his opinions. Wnt (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, do WP:VALINFO and WP:USEFUL apply here? Whose Your Guy (talk) 07:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Jayron, as I pointed out above, there are certain public record primary sources that Wikipedia currently prohibits BOTH for basing a whole article on, and ALSO for mere supplementation purposes. I'm saying that leaked national security info should be added to the list. Otherwise, clever editors will find a way to use it as supplementation instead of as the core of an article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Leaving out "private data" from an article already risks running into censorship, but the hope is that it is not really encyclopedically relevant anyway. It is a prohibition on specific types of facts of low importance. Your proposal is to ban information according to the route by which it reached us, regardless of its (generally large) overall significance. We should not allow the small errors of one policy to turn into the larger errors of the next until we end up ruling out coverage of major world events. Wnt (talk) 07:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with most of the editors above that the classified or leaked status of the cables is not relevant for us (we are not the US government), but their status as primary sources is: they are "accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event", as described at WP:PRIMARY, and have not been subject to editorial oversight. As such, articles should not be based exclusively on them.  Sandstein  07:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

In covering the documents in question, CNN announced that it "is not publishing specific details from the list, which refers to pipelines and undersea telecommunications cables as well as the location of minerals or chemicals critical to U.S. industry."[97] However, this did not stop User:Wnt from citing the CNN article and publishing specific details from WikiLeaks. This is most certainly relevant for us, as this is incredibly poor editorial behavior that is not condoned by Wikipedia. Here we have reliable secondary sources that admittedly refuse to print the details, and yet we also have Wikipedia editors who ignore the secondary sources and decide to publish the details from the primary sources anyway, because they know better than the secondary sources. Furthermore, Silverseren's laughable claim that "the primary source was only being used to source the list of infrastructures. ALL of the other sources in the article were secondary" is highly and purposefully deceptive. Wnt's original article was 24,876 bytes, of which only 3,664 bytes were sourced to one secondary source (CNN), with the rest coming from WikiLeaks. The rest of his sourcing was a combination of original research and misuse of primary sources. A later revision by Wnt added a BBC source and a Times Online source printed by The Australian, expanding the article a little more, but with the majority of the article based on primary sources that CNN refused to publish. So, we have secondary sources that refuse to publish sensitive classified information that a Wikipedia editor feels they can safely ignore. Wnt should be blocked for doing this. Viriditas (talk) 07:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Kailashgupta180

Could I get an admin to look at User:Kailashgupta180. Since joining Wikipedia in July, user has done one useful thing: creating an article on a Khiddirpur, a village in India. This is a great addition to the encyclopedia. Unfortunately, at the same time, the editor has been highly disruptive, essentially trying a large variety of methods to create an article about himself and his website under a variety of names (Kailash gupta, Www.kailashgupta182.wikia.com, and Kailashgupta182). Furthermore, the editor has added personal information to the Khiddirpur article numerous times--either a link to his user page, as here, or an email address, as here. This additions were done both with his accoutn and with an IP address (e.g., [98]). The rest of the user's time has been spent polishing his user page, which is somewhere between myspacey and resume-like. I have tried numerous times to inform the user of policies, but I've never gotten a response. The user was given a final warning by User:Eeekster on creating pages about himself back on 23 July ([99]), and that held, until today when he created the two newest ones (both tagged for speedy deletion). I don't see how spending any more time trying to teach or channel this user is going to help, because we're not getting any indication that the user understands, is listening, or is willing to follow our policies. I invite an admin to consider a block of some type; given the lack of useful edits after the initial article creation, I'm tempted to recommend an indefinite block, to last until such time as the user is demonstrates that xe understands our policies and purpose. I'm off to notify subject and Eeekster nowQwyrxian (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me like the user just doesn't get it. He doesn't understand wikipedia policy, nor do I think he is ever going to try to. All, or most of his edits are vanity edits, including the article he created, which, I think he made solely because he was born there, and wanted to put himself in that article at some point.

I regret not AGF'ing on this user, but he seems to be well beyond the stage of gentle rebuking - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 06:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:POINT violations through AWB by User:Rich Farmbrough

I have been in a conflict over User:Rich Farmbrough's use of AWB and bot edits for the last month or so. In retaliation, he has now considered it wise to reply to twelve MfD's on pages by Geo Swan (half of them nominated by me) in the space of 2 minutes, plus one five minutes before, all of them with an absolutely incorrect edit summary, and the exact same argument, no mater what the reason for the MfD nomination was. (see his contributions of this morning, between 07.02 and 07.09

Please consider examples like Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/working/Guantamao expl a, where the page was already deleted by the author before Rich vored keep (and where his keep is quite amusing when compared to the actual page), or Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/The voyage of the Berserk II, which is not abotu a BLP problem but where he kept his rational of "there are no BLP issues here." which he used on all these pages.

Can he please be blocked for misuse of AWB, WP:POINT violations, misleading edit summaries, and WP:WIKIHOUNDING (when in conflict with an editor, come to pages completely unrelated to that conflict just to oppose the other editor...). Fram (talk) 08:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)