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

Review of unblock request and discussion of possible community ban

Unresolved

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/CCI

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

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

Unresolved

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

Murder of Meredith Kercher, again, uninvolved admins please

Unresolved

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

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

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

Suggestion for this page?

Please excuse me if this is the wrong venue. My rationale for posting this here is that it would affect those(meaning admins) that commonly check this noticeboard.

.. To the topic,

I notice that time and time again, users post here when there is an AIV backlog. What if we simply used a template to post a notice to the top of this page when AIV became a certain size in bytes?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Mjroots (talk) 09:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Without dismissing this idea, it is not a case of administrators simply being unaware that backlogs exist; we already have WP:BACKLOG for that. In many cases, a personal plea, for all its admitted faults, is a lot more effective in drawing volunteers (speaking from personal experience). On another note, the header sections of these noticeboards are bloated at least five times more than is appropriate; if there were an automated digest, I'd rather it was added as a section or footer. Skomorokh 15:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:BACKLOG doesn't appear to contain lists for administrative-based things, like AIV.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

How often is it really backlogged though? They may pile up every so often, but does it ever get out of hand to the point of being truly backlogged? Jmlk17 20:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

See the administrative subcategory and linked pages. Skomorokh 20:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Daedalus raises a good point, even though those other mechanisms exist, it's clearly not preventing the frequent backlogs that arise.   Thorncrag  21:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Which is precisely my point above; ceteris paribus, no amount of automation will. Skomorokh 22:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right, but that doesn't mean we should just ignore it  :-)   Thorncrag  22:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You are also probably right, but I'm not convinced this is a better way of not ignoring it than the existing method as described by the OP. Cheers, Skomorokh 22:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

What if we used a div to float a box in the bottom left, or right, displaying the notice?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

With a hide option?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like there are already places where the backlog notifications get posted--the backlogs happen anyway because nobody looks in those places. That includes the headers of this page (which probably don't get looked at much either). So they get posted as ANI threads, because people do notice those. Main alternative I can think of is a subscription bot that delivers notices to usertalk pages of admins and others who want to receive them. 75.57.241.73 (talk) 06:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I've whipped up {{AIVBacklog Notice}} which will place a floating notice in the bottom-left corner if AIV is 6000 bytes or more.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to take a look at this thread by Daedalus969. Just in passing, I do not have much to add, but would not be opposed to the idea. I doubt it will really get in the way, and it may prove helpful to those who choose to head over to AIV when the see it. Just my 2 cents though. Tiptoety ^talk 07:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It would also be useful if other admins commented on the template c.c, and maybe tried to reach a consensus on whether or not it should be transcluded c.c— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I rather like the idea. AIV backlogs need taken care of quickly, and it would be helpful to have an immediate reminder to go help out there when it does back up. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Would it be possible to give this a trial run then; do I have permission to add it to the header for this page? I would like to wait longer, but it doesn't seem this thread is attracting much attention.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't seem to get it to appear on my screen when I do test edits in a sandbox; is it just something about my browser? I'm still on Monobook. Also Im not sure why you have a link to edit AIV there, since you can't block someone from an edit screen unless you're using WikEd or some similar tool, and even for those people I think it would be better to just have a normal wiki link. —Soap— 21:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll fix that in a second, but it only appears when the AIV page is 6000 bytes or more. You can, as a test, get it to appear if you just change the location of the double closing curly brackets, turning off the #ifexpr.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I did those things and it still didnt appear unless I pushed it up higher on the page. The version you've made at Template:AIVBacklog Notice/sandbox seems to work though. —Soap— 22:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

User:213.33.31.120 @ Gaza War

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

I am requesting the rollback of IP User:213.33.31.120 and a short preventative block on editing from the address. The IP has made very questionable edits:

• [1] (removal of sourced info with additions of unsourced info contradicting it)
• [2] (what appeared to be more trolling)
• [3] (some more with the removal of a source)
• [4] (the only edit that isn't blatantly terrible. The POV is a little much, though)

I have asked the IP to provide reasoning numerous times.[5][6][7][8][9] It might be a troll, it might be a sock (he appears to know about templates), or it could just be a new IP. Regardless, the edits are just too questionable.Cptnono (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

And now the IP is edit warring to get something he deems as most important to the top of an article regardless of general layout practices.[10][11] The whole Yesha Council thing was his provided reasoning over at Gaza War.

This is an obvious case of disruption and needs to be taken care of.Cptnono (talk) 09:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

And this one doesn't even make sense [12]. Obvious disruption is obvious. As the diffs pile up I might just take it to the vandalism board.Cptnono (talk) 09:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You are starting a vandal witch hunt. It is way past midnight your time, go to sleep. It will clear your mind. --213.33.31.120 (talk) 09:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've blocked the IP for vandalism. Competency and POV may also come into it, but vandalism works for me. The IP's comment above sealed the deal. TFOWR 09:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • He is back now to try avoid his block. [13] LibiBamizrach (talk) 04:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
    • 213.6.11.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
      • Blocked for 3rr from this IP itself, I didn't look at AN/I or its nearby IPs for a deeper pattern or evasion. Other admins feel free to lengthen or rangeblock. DMacks (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • He is continue to edit war and vandalise can someone please do something about that? LibiBamizrach (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Also this one is another [14] LibiBamizrach (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
    • 213.6.46.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
      • Was blocked recently. This is either a sockfest or IP rotating or somesuch. Loooong-term problem with similar wording in talk-page whines (in addition to WP:DUCK of the edits to several settlement articles). WP:COMPETENCE indeed. If the settlers aren't people (NB: not even "people who happen to be settlers), there's really nothing except WP:RBI and move on. DMacks (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Sheesh, give these twits access to the internet and you never hear the end of 'em... HalfShadow 20:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
          • The IP 213.6.11.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back simply ignoring warnings and blocks: [15]. [16]. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
            • Level4 warned. Not sure why I bothered, but whatever... DMacks (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Difficulty with User:Hushpuckena

This user has been editing articles about cities, counties, et cetera in what (initially) was probably a good-faith attempt to fix perceived grammar issues: singular versus plural when referring to a measure of area. I have questioned this via the user's talk page because I felt that the grammar was actually being broken by some of these edits, not fixed. I still believe that, and provided supporting information for this in some of my comments; but the main issue here is this user's complete failure to engage in any discussion, and to continue making the questioned edits even after six separate attempts to elicit comments over a period of two weeks. I feel I've made a strong effort to communicate about this politely and to give ample opportunity for the user to respond and discuss; but there has been no response at all, except that the pace of these edits has slowed (which may or may not relate to my queries -- there's no way to tell as there has been no discussion). Certainly the edits have not stopped.

On 25 August, this edit was one of a batch which prompted my initial query. Several more edits were made with no response, and about half an hour later I made another query. A few more edits were made; this edit was the last in that batch. I had hoped that these edits would then stop, despite the lack of response.

On 28 August, another similar edit was made. I queried the user again but got no response, and later proceeded to revert the relevant portions of the user's previous edits as I had stated I would. On 2 September another such edit was made, and I queried again. No response. On 8 September, another edit and another query -- no response.

Later that day, User:Huwmanbeing questioned a slightly different aspect of this user's edits, involving singular versus plural when applied to fractional measures of area. Hushpuckena made another such edit the following day and still there has been no response.

Under the circumstances, I'm not sure what else to do. Thanks. Omnedon (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Maybe a {{uw-mos2}} warning on his talk page would start to get his attention: but maybe not, apparently. His listed "copyedits" are really just not correct - so just undo them with an appropriate edit summary. Edits like this[17], on the other hand, are entirely appropriate and constructive: maybe a "trouting" for the bad edits? If he simply won't discuss it (or even acknowledge attempts at discussion), and continues in this editing vein, it's pretty obvious what will eventually happen, now isn't it? Yup... Doc9871 (talk) 06:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
• Bad news, Omnedon. I think that Hushpuckena has the grammar right, and you are in error here, in all of the edits you mention. That's not reason to ignore you, but I can understand the mindset of someone who corrects a fairly obvious grammatical error only to have it undone, and who concludes that Wikipedia can just suffer from the errors being reintroduced, since xe's done xyr part in fixing them once. I can also understand the mindset of someone who decides that it's not xyr responsibility to teach everyone else on a wiki grammar, or who has no desire to spend xyr time arguing about grammar with pseudonymous people on a wiki. I don't particularly agree with it (such editorial discussions being part and parcel of collaborative writing), but I can understand it.

  "square miles" is more than one "square mile" and takes a plural "are". You misapplied your own authority, moreover. The sentences in question do contain an "of phrase". See the "of which"? That's the "of phrase". ☺ Uncle G (talk) 08:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, he is wrong over the singular/plural thing (i.e. changing miles to mile for units less than one) but I think "are" is the correct grammar. Although it was shoddy sentence construction in the first place. For example it is much better to say of which 3,179 square miles (8,233 km²) consists of land and 29 square miles (75 km²) (0.90%) of water --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 08:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

G: The conventions of English grammar don't support Hushpuckena, but as Omnedon points out, the grammar itself isn't the issue (and doesn't appear to be the point of this incident). The subject in question is Hushpuckena's unwillingness to discuss things with other editors, or to acknowledge other editors' polite posts, or to cease making edits about which there's clearly some disagreement. I personally don't think that this is behavior that should ever be winked at as "understandable", regardless of how one feels about the grammar. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 13:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

UncleG, first of all, the grammar is not the primary issue here. The issue is this user's behavior. Wikipedia is founded upon collaboration. In this case, edits have been questioned (and very politely). The issue of which user's opinion is right is irrelevant to the issue at hand, in that under these circumstances the editor is expected to respond before continuing. This editor refuses to say a word, and continues to make edits that have been questioned. That's unacceptable in a collaborative environment. You are essentially defending this by saying it is understandable. It is not understandable, hence the request for administrator assistance.

However, to address the grammar issue, you're mistaken; you are mis-applying the Yale reference I supplied. Example 2 directly refutes your statement that "'square miles' is more than one 'square mile' and takes a plural 'are'." Example 3 does not apply in this case; the "of which" to which you are referring comes before the definition of area. The text reads like "X square miles is land"; there is no "of" phrase there. However, even if there was an "of" phrase, it would read something like "X square miles of the area is land", and thus it would still be singular based on this reference.

Errant, the grammar in those geography sections has been bad for years, ever since it was automatically generated from the census data. I have been working recently to fix those issues. For that reason Hushpuckena's edits came to my attention, as I have lots of these articles on my watchlist. Many of this editor's copyedits are good; the only content problem I'm aware of is the incorrect change from singular to plural. Omnedon (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I was unaware of the deep intricacies of the plural/singular argument before I whacked Hushpuckena upside the head. I thought his changes were wrong grammatically... whatever. He's still quite actively editing[18], and apparently ignoring this thread (and the real basis for it) completely, despite being "informed" of it. A good editor who simply refuses to communicate with others in the community. Why can't he respond? There must be some classic previous cases like this. What to do? Doc9871 (talk) 08:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say this is deeply intricate, and these particular changes are indeed wrong grammatically. In general, it would appear that other edits made by this editor are of good quality and tend to improve the relevant articles. I just would like to discuss this specific issue with him/her and can't because the editor is ignoring this. Omnedon (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

As a followup, I see that this editor has asked another editor about this issue and has received a response. Clearly this editor is aware of the issue. Omnedon (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

His edit history in general looks very good, actually: he's a valuable editor. His communication skills are terrible (two total edits to his talk page, both of them reverts of other editors), but I don't think it's against policy to be a "shut-in"(?). He's not being disruptive. This thread should probably be closed, and Hushpuckena should hopefully come out of his shell and do the old "meet and greet". Doc9871 (talk) 07:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It actually is against policy (specifically WP:Civility), which requires editors to "resolve differences of opinion through civil discussion." To completely avoid/ignore discussion of any kind is to make that impossible. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 12:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This is disruptive. He's not just being a "shut-in"; he's making edits that break article grammar, he won't discuss it, and he continues to do it even when questioned. Omnedon (talk) 12:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

What I mean is: what should be done here? Should he be blocked for a short time for not discussing things, to "send him a message"? You're both right, and he does certainly meet the fourth criteria of disruptive editing: "Does not engage in consensus building: * repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits." The fifth criteria also seems to apply here. Something should get his attention... Doc9871 (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The thing about grammar arguments is that sometimes grammar is in the eyes of the beholder. My take is that Hushpuckena is probably technically correct (I only say that he probably is; my own mother used to correct my grammar on certain points in a similar manner that I resisted at first, and I still think that she's often a smug smartass), but the problem that Hush has found involves more than the "fix" that he has chosen to address it. Put simply, the template is worded in an awkward mannner, and therefore may cause an awkward use of grammar by some of those who attempt to use it. If someone were to change this often-repeated language to something like "the area of land is <x acres> and the area of water is <x acres>" we'd all be speaking the same language, no? As Doc is saying, Hush should be talking. Let's get him talking, and the best way to do that is to address the concern that he has noted. Are we all so caught up in the ANI "NO CONTENT DISPUTES" rule that we can't even look at a simple content issue that can be fixed without visiting some horrid grammar manual that most of us would wish never to see again? Really? Just change the template to avoid the debate and move on.... Steveozone (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute; this is about an editor who refuses to engage in discussion. The editor has already ignored multiple requests for discussion while continuing the disputed edits. That's disruptive, and that's the reason for this ANI discussion -- not grammar, as has repeatedly been stated here. In any case, the information in question is not delivered via a template; it's text embedded in each article. The text was auto-generated by a bot years ago. Omnedon (talk) 01:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Block review: User:Wikid77, violation of topic ban

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Agree. Separate the productive Wikid77 from the unproductive one by placing an indef topic ban, clearly phrased to be applied to "all" MoMK related discussions construed widely (including user talkpages). The previous ban description did just that but Wikid77 seemly didn't understand it that way as shown in some posts made during his topic ban [19], [[20], [21], [22].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And, in case anyone missed it, there is this diff, [23] look in the middle of the post and you will see Wikid's own words: "Because of my topic ban, I am not allowed to discuss the specifics of the AK case (until Sept. 11)." So it's pretty clear that four days ago he did in fact understand it to mean literally three months, and only after he was blocked did it suddenly become 90 days. So, that whole line of argument is a lie on his part. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• (e/c) Update from his latest post to his talkpage [24]. Well, I guess that does it. Wikid still thinks he is in the right like he thought so when he shifted the blame for his sockpuppetry to the admins (just check his talkpage from the time of the SPI case) and even demands now a retraction of the proofed claim of his lying w/o responding to the clear cut proof. Amazing. Really amazing. As they had their chance but chose to go on with their wiki lawyering I see no other solution as to go ahead with what was proposed: Indef topic ban (clearly defined to prevent any kind of further wikilawyering). Keeping the one month block in place for now until the user starts seeing what they did wrong and acknowledges it here or in case this thread is already archived by that time in a new ANI thread with a pointer to this one. If anyone has a better more reasonable solution that would work please state it now. Unfortunately we're again at a point where enough is enough.TMCk (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Reply from User:Wikid77 copied from User_talk:Wikid77

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed draft on topic ban

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fresh activity from Wikid77 on his talk page: [25] SuperMarioMan 19:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikid77 reply on proposed topic ban

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

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

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

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

That's what the banning admin actually said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ready for admin intervention

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

Odokee

Odokee (talk · contribs) is continuing to be an annoyance when it comes to romanizations of Japanese text which may or may not include aspects of the English language. I am aware that this style issue is currently at ArbCom but as it currently stands, the arbitration committee is not taking the case on those grounds. Odokee has consistently been the least helpful in this whole situation, and has repeatedly removed the romaji on several articles, despite repeated requests to cease. His manners have also devolved. In addition to having used misleading edit summaries the last time I reported him, these activities continued on these articles. When I discovered those two edits, I undid them, and notified him on his talk page that he should cease these disruptive activities. He responded by removing the section and going on a revert spree. Everyone else in this whole debate has been cordial and helpful, but Odokee can't seem to even bring any sort of etiquette to the table. He should not go "lol japanification" or "rinse, repeat, remove bad edit", or "rv japanification vandalism" to edits made in good faith and those that help the project, even if he disagrees with their usefulness as he has plainly exhibited in his contributions to the long and winding discussion on WT:VG/GL and WT:MOS-JA ([26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]). I am most certainly tired of arguing with this user, as he does not bother to respond back, and I am definitely tired of edit warring over something as simple as the text "Āru Pī Jī" or "Dī Esu Ai".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

More evidence of the impossibility it is to talk to this user.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

And more. After this, I have truly found that it is pointless to talk sense into this user, as he reverted what he thought was a WP:3RR violation, thereby violating WP:3RR himself. I've posted on AN3, and I sadly expect that I will not be able to respond to this later on because both myself and Odokee will invariably be blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are in violation of 3RR too - so both of you will likely be blocked by AN3. Is there a consensus on which format is to be used? I took a look but it was unclear whether one exists or is still under debate. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 09:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the inevitable happened. Both editors blocked for 24hrs. Close out? --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 10:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

also Ryu called Odokee an asshole on his talk page I think, or something along those lines.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

he did LiteralKa (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

There has been a long standing consensus, one which has been violated by ryulong hundreds of times in recent days as part of an attempt to change policy through brute force and get affected communities to kowtow to the requests of a single person. He knows it and the affected communities know it, but he thinks he is flying under the radar, while it is evident that most just don't want to react to petty demands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.251.111 (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd recommend a much longer block for Odokee, it's quite obvious he's editing in bad faith and constantly referring to other's edits as vandalism if he disagrees with them. He's uncommunicative and I might recommend a week long block along with a topic ban on any changes relating to changing of romanization/romaji of japanese text.--Crossmr (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with a longer block for Odokee. He blanks messages on his talk page and refuses to cooperate with people. He just insists that he is right. A much longer block is definitely needed. Avindratalk 14:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

As it is quite obvious, Odokee has been repeatedly evading his block. I discovered this edit last night and brought it to User:MuZemike's attention and asked for a checkuser. He just did a WP:DUCK block. And now he's made this comment here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I poked Muzemike and asked him to reconsider the block length.--Crossmr (talk) 02:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

User:ZirconiumTwice - disruptive or within the bounds?

ZirconiumTwice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has done some really odd, complex stuff with his userpages. He moves them to sandboxes and then moves those sandboxes to other sandboxes and then redirects other sandboxes to sandboxes. At the moment (14:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC), in case it has changed since I wrote this), clicking the talkpage link in his signature takes you to one of his sandbox pages. The problem with that is (1) if one left a message to ZirconiumTwice they wouldn't see the 'you have new messages' orange box and (2) all the associated toolbox links for ZirconiumTwice such as contributions or block logs don't show because it isn't really their talk page. They also appear to have several archival copies of existing articles as well as the main page for 'Symbipedia' [42], which seems contrary to WP:UP#COPIES.

In addition, ZirconiumTwice seems to have a problem editing collegially. At the moment, he has a 'blacklist' on the sandbox that his userpage redirects to that lists PaleAqua (talk · contribs · count) and Strange Passerby (talk · contribs · count). He has brought a complaint about Cameron Scott (talk · contribs · count) [43] that was closed with no admin action needed and a note that ZirconiumTwice's warning were inappropriate. When I made a note to another user on ZirconiumTwice's talkpage and called myself a talkpage stalker, ZT responded with the section User_talk:Syrthiss#Don.27t_call_me_a_stalker.2C_please on my talkpage. My response on his talkpage trying to clarify was unanswered.

I'm bringing this here because (1) I don't have a lot of time to dig into this at the moment and (2) because I don't think I have any path available to myself that would lead to a productive outcome. I don't know if these behaviors are from a cultural difference, but ZT's edits are becoming increasingly disruptive in my opinion. I'm not sure if this is a matter for ANI, or for a RFC/U, so I'm trying to get some opinions here.

Going to notify the user on their 'talkpage' now. Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 14:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The previous talk page history that he was trying to hide is here. David Biddulph (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking about just 'fixing' it all for him. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I noticed you speedied User:ZirconiumTwice/Sandbox, Chase me. How about all of these? Should they be MFD'd (WP:FAKEARTICLE) or, as I think, are they (and especially User:ZirconiumTwice/Sandbox/Symbipedia:To do) equally speediable as the main sandbox page? Strange Passerby (talk) 06:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

For the record, the user in question once left me this little nugget on my talk page after I warned him on 3RR at Manila hostage crisis. Strange Passerby (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Definitely weird. Probably headed for more trouble. No strong opinion on whether his weirdness is actionable yet, but I wouldn't object to someone giving him direct guidance on collegiality. Jclemens (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the "blacklist" listing me for me. I assume it was related to my suggestion that some color navigation templates that he worked on be deleted, see series of edits. In response he left me message telling me not to distrub his user page despite my only edits to his user space being leaving a message albeit mostly templated at his talk page. PaleAqua (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the copyright claims, since they don't own the copyright of anything they add to this site.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like his userspace is now up at MFD. Strange Passerby (talk) 07:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Widespread canvassing by User:WritersCramp

Resolved

 – Content fork turned into redirect, AfD closed, canvasing user blocked for two weeks. Discussion seems to be over, too. Hans Adler 23:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone AfD'd an article that WritersCramp (talk · contribs) created and was a major contributor to (see AfD here). In response, WritersCramp tagged the article for rescue, and then went on a huge canvassing spree, notifying well over 100 editors about the AfD. See his message to me here, which is identical to the message he sent everyone else. While his message is not explicitly asking for a particular !vote, it's clear these messages are completely inappropriate. Looking at the four criteria at WP:CANVAS, I would say it fails Scale (100-200 editors, so far), Audience (since a disproportional number of the editors he notified are ARS members, who are generally inclusionists), and Transparency (since the only way to find the canvassing is to look through his contributions). WP:CANVAS also lists this as an example of inappropriate canvassing: "Posting messages to an excessively large number of individual users, or to users who have asked not to receive such messages." WritersCramp was warned by another user about canvassing here, but continued to canvas after the warning.
So, I think we can all agree that this behavior is inappropriate canvassing. The next question is, what can be done about it? The AfD is hopelessly tainted now. I'll add the {{Not a ballot}} template to the top, but I doubt it will accomplish much. Should the AfD be closed and restarted at a later date? Should WritersCramp be temporarily blocked for continuing to canvas after being warned (probably a bit harsh)? Will the closing admin be able to distinguish which !votes came as a result of canvassing and discount them? SnottyWong ^babble 14:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

One thing that has been bugging me about this whole thing is this. Assuming that User:WritersCramp is canvassing by informing those who are likely to !vote "keep", why did he inform you? No offense intended but that just doesn't seem like smart "votestacking". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Closing the AfD would seem to encourage rather than discouraging such canvassing. I agree it's a problem that should have been stopped when the contributor was first notified. Beyond the canvassing, there is some concerning edit-warring with tags on the article in question: [44] (rvt. 1); [45] (rvt. 2); [46] (rvt. 3). This edit shows the contributor is aware of the "bright line" and not unwilling to solicit others to enforce his actions to avoid crossing it. Some of the tags may be excessive, but the article clearly is an {{orphan}}, and I can't see the value of reverting the correction to the formatting of Portal:Christianity. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

And because he is about to be hit by 3RR, he's asking at the AfD for someone else to to a revert for him [47]. I'm very concerned about this canvassing. I don't know if these are all ARS members, but putting 'Rescue' as the section heading is clearly asking people to support keeping the article. I also think that if we have ARS, there should be no separate posts to ARS members like these. This is clearly not helping the AfD process. Dougweller (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

He canvassed me, too. His conduct is unacceptable, and I urge Administrators to take the appropriate actions against him. On the merits, the Armageddon theology article should be deleted soon.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Recommend Block for disruption and asking someone to be his meat puppet. It's edit warring plain and simple. this process simply can't continue with his continued participation if he keeps this up.--Crossmr (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

In regard to the AFD, I think the boomerang has come back around--while there are more editors involved than might otherwise be the case, the AFD doesn't really seem tainted to me. I'd hate to see any tea spilt as a result of this tempest. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

taint is not necessarily an issue. His behaviour is disruptive, even if it's not getting him the result he wants. I wasn't going to recommend a block, but asking someone to join his edit war steps over the line. the process needs a break from him. He can self-impose or someone can do it for him is my recommendation. and his insistence that people who want to delete it not edit it during AfD is a violation of WP:OWN. Strongly support a block. He misused the help template on his user page to try and get an admin to enforce that.[48]--Crossmr (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have been more explicit. I have no position on whether or not a block is appropriate--I've looked over WritersCramp's contributions, and while clearly s/he's been around long enough to know policy, and seems in general to be a constructive editor, the canvassing and asking for another editor to revert is troubling. My point was simply that the AFD seems to be proceeding in a reasonable fashion. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

What's done is done, and unfortunately we can't do anything about it for this AFD except hope that the closing arguments carefully considers the canvassing. A block is one option for settling this, however I do wish to propose this sanction: WritersCramp is prohibited from mentioning or linking to any open XfD or DRV discussion, except to the significant contributors of the page in question. Violations of this sanction as well as wikilawyering about the sanction will be dealt with severely. NW (Talk) 15:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• I would support both. There's a significant sign of WP:IDHT in this, and this was disruptive. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed. It appears as if something significant will have to happen just to get his or her attention. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• • • I was about to block him for a week after he removed the 'not a ballot' template, but as I'd voted... but I would support both a block and the ban proposed above. Maybe letting him back in February was not a good idea (he'd been indeff'd for sock puppetry & loads of blocks in 2005/6). Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have reverted the page back to a redirect. This is what the page originally was and the vast majority of people commenting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armageddon theology want it reverted to one. Sort of s 'SNOW redirect'. HalfShadow 16:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked WritersCramp 2 weeks for disruptive editing, opting for a longer block due to his history of disruption ([49]). –MuZemike 16:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Great minds and all that. My own block for 2 weeks was just beaten by yours. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Question - Wouldn't it be better to delete the article and re-create it as a redirect with no edit history? Among other things this version contains a link to an executable file (see footnote 8, but be careful about clicking on it), which shouldn't be anywhere on Wikipedia, even in an edit history. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• That's a word document file. Is it forbidden to link to one of these? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, I misinterpreted a warning box that firefox put on my screen when I clicked on it. It's just a word file as you say. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Another Question I just noticed that this user was engaged in some abusive sockpuppetry in the past and had this account unblocked only this year. He had a rather extensive block-log prior to this. Given that, I wonder if 2 weeks was enough or should we have gone longer?--Crossmr (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

From my previous interactions with and then research about this user it seems clear to me that he means well but just doesn't get it. Arbcom allowed him to return under certain very specific conditions, and while his recent behaviour is similar to things he used to do, it doesn't really break these conditions. I have already contacted John Vandenberg by email, and I trust that he/Arbcom will do whatever is appropriate and necessary. I guess they are already aware he isn't a net benefit to the project, but want to be pragmatic to contain the socking. Hans Adler 23:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

My suicide has been requested

Resolved

 – user indef blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I just received this bit of unpleasantness from an editor, who I recently blocked for a week because of vandalism. I'm not usually keen to block people because of incivility, but an invitation to commit suicide is a bit much. Since I'm obviously not objective in this matter, I leave the decision to others. Favonian (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I've given a 48 hour NPA/Harassment block, because that's pretty egregious. I have no objections whatsoever to anyone lengthening that block, but would appreciate conversation before it is shortened. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick intervention! Favonian (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)MRG, I block conflicted you. I was going to indef as a VOA. Courcelles 16:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I was going to escalate the length from the previous 1-week block and give a 2-week block, so he's lucky you got there first. I don't see any need to lengthen the block, though, since we can always block him again if he doesn't cut it out. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I was also about to indef the account, but agree with FisherQueen.  Sandstein  16:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, y'all can lengthen if it seems appropriate. The only reason I didn't indef myself is that this seems to have attempted to be constructive, even if it doesn't meet sourcing standards. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I reverted quite a bit of that. 'Barabara Steele' - Barbara Steele is still alive, and the bit about her was unsourced... Dougweller (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be made clear to this user that they can now consider themselves permanently at "final warning" status for incivility and that another comment like that, ever, is grounds for an immediate indef block. Actually I just went ahead and did that, we can't have this kind of nastiness.[50] I think we can leave it at that for now, they will be under the microscope when the block expires. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

* Comment- Well, this case seems a bit *awkward* to me, As everyone said, the user came to Favonian's talk page in a uncivil manner and threatened to commit suicide. I agree with what Moonriddengirl did. She gave a 48 hour NPA/Harassment block, which was an appropriate thing to do. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 19:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No, Nikko told Favonian that Favonian could become a "better person" by committing suicide. Nikko should have been put on ice for a lot longer than he was, unless he retracted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Ooops - it appears i've overlooked something here, at least something was done. Comments like that will not be tolerated on Wikipedia and it's a good thing Moonriddengirl blocked em'. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 19:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Or it could just be someone having this old elementary-school-level joke in mind:

Q: How can you get rid of 10 pounds of ugly fat?

A: Cut off your head!

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Given the tone of his unblock requests, I'm taking Moon at her word and extending the block to indefinite. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely concur with the indef, especially given the further commentary. That's not someone that's here to be constructive. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

In case it's not obvious enough to everyone now, the correct action would have been 1) indef, 2) indef without talk page access. Time does not cure egregious behavior. Blocks for such should only be lifted based on sincere, apparently contrite unblock requests. Jclemens (talk) 06:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to get an outsider view from some experienced administator?

Resolved

 – Not an administrator issue. Try the WP:NPOVN or WP:Content noticeboard. Fences&Windows 17:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Restoring_Honor_rally I have the strong feeling that some neutral outsider view would be very helpful. Now the page is protected, but the discussion on Talk is getting more and more absurd.
At the end the simple question is: If one reliable source is providing quite detailed information about calculating the size of an event, referring to scientific methods, while another reliable source does provide only a number without further explanation, should Wikipedia take this into account or hide completely?
I think for every neutral outsider the answer should be clear, but there is so a strong fight, dominated - in my view - by absurd and unfortunately dishonest arguments (e.g. claiming that someone wants to add some information as fact, whereas in reality it is only about reporting this information as "source X says ...").
Maybe some administrator is willing to take a look at it? (I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask for it, but I'm just trying it...) 82.135.29.209 (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The above is essentially a Request for comment about article content. That's not especially an admin thing. The way to do it is make a section of the talk page titled "request for comment", explain the question you want comments on, and then list the question at WP:RFC (see the instructions there under "Request comment through talk pages"). 67.119.12.106 (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! You live and learn. I created such a RFC. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 08:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Jewish religious censoring by user

IZAK (talk · contribs) has been changing a header on the talk page of Elazar Shach from "Smurf Shach" to "Bluish photo of Rabbi Shach". See [51], [52], and [53]. His explanation, as stated in the first edit summary is "fix sub-heading for better language that is not offensive". I have reverted this because 1. one should not change header titles lightly, since they might be linked 2. as the original post stated clearly, no offense or disrespect was intended 3. this is plain censoring out of misplaced reverence to a person whose picture just came out lousy.

In addition he continues his irrational prejudice against Chabad editors mentioning a "Chabad POV hatred of this rabbi". I remind you of the ArbCom case in which he also made accusations about Chabad editors which were not found to be true by ArbCom. When will the community force this user to abide by the "assume good faith" rule? Not to mention that the original poster is not, to the best of my knowledge, affiliated with Chabad. Debresser (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

What, you want editors to be allowed to mock a person on the talk page of their article, and are upset that people object? Do you not have anything useful to do? Fences&Windows 17:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I've collapsed that thread, discussing a bad photo on an external page has nothing to do with improving the article. Fences&Windows 17:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to miss the point, that he does look like a smurf, and that the original editor stated specifically, that no offense was intended. Debresser (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem was started by in this diff when User:Insert coins needlessly demeaned the subject of the article by opening a section with a demeaning title that had no intention of anything to do with improving the article. User:IZAK was totaslly correct in his alteration of the header and additional reverts back to the demeaning header by User:Debresser were also bad judgments as was the opening of this thread. Off2riorob (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

User:IZAK was totally correct in his actions. Off2riorob (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC) No, he wasn't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No, he wasn't. The rabbi (who is deceased, so there is no BLP issue) appears in a poorly-toned photo that the initial editor thought made him look like a Smurf. Evidently y'all don't know what Smurfs are. They're blue-toned cartoon characters. Tinkering with the editors comments was out of line, and ignores the real issue - namely, that that website that's supposedly honoring him has some really lousy photos (not just that one). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No one mentioned BLP, it is possible to demean a dead person also. Off2riorob (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Funny. There seems to be more than one opinion as to how this issue was resolved. :) Debresser (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

All that's left is to find what section to post this in at WP:LAME. If we can't make a lighthearted joke about a photograph that came out wrong, I don't want to be here. The comment referenced the photograph, nobody is suggesting that the rabbi is actually a smurf, he's clearly far too large to live in a hollowed out mushroom. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. The initial comment was about the photo, and some nanny with no clue about the subject decided to "censor" the section title. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

My point precisely. Although I feel User:IZAK was acting according to his renowned anti-Chabad agenda. Again. I really think Wikipedia would do best to ban this user from all Jewish -related articles. Debresser (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with a light-hearted comment per se, but there were some special circumstances here:

• The whole thing was rather gratuitous. The photo in question (very obviously the fifth from bottom here) doesn't just give the rabbi a blue face; it simply has no red tones at all. That's blatantly evident, and the question really wasn't about the rabbi's blue face but about the quality of a site that uses such a photo when it also has so many others that are obviously superior. (I am not sure it's a very good point, since there may well be a specific significance to this specific photo, which his adherents may know shows him on some special occasion.)
• The light-hearted comment was in the title, where it was misleading.
• The entire situation looks like a calculated provocation.
• When it became apparent that IZAK found this light-hearted joke in bad taste and redacted it, Debresser edit-warred for its inclusion on the talk page.

We must have a free climate, where we can make harmless jokes without fear of retribution. That doesn't mean that deliberate provocations of an opponent are acceptable, or that ostensibly harmless jokes are immune from being redacted per WP:TALK#Others' comments/Section headings. Hans Adler 19:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I posted an "anchor" so that both "Smurf Shach" and "Blue photo of Rabbi Shach" should still work from editors' history lists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• - This thread is a perfect reflection of everything that is awful at the wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Second rio. It's just battlefield bullshit that has zero to do with article content (as opposed to the battlefield bullshit that at least does have something to do with article content). Debresser requesting a ban from all jewish topics for a long-standing opponent of his for the crime of "complaining someone compared a rabbi to a smurf on a talk page" is an interesting new tactic though.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) This doesn't appear to require administrator attention, and I firmly agree that this would be a candidate for WP:LAMEST. In any case, the thread doesn't seem particularly offensive, but surely the best response to "I find the title offensive" is, "I'm sorry you feel that way, I'll change it to something just as descriptive which doesn't make an unnecessary joke"? I don't see the need to edit war over the title and then take it to WP:ANI because of a disagreement over a poor joke. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not everything, surely. It does hit most of the checklist, though. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact it engendered a dispute illustrates why it shouldn't have been messed with in the first place. And since it was, the editor should have placed the "anchor" template so as not to mess up links to the original title. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Your pointy anchoring of the objected to smurf title is one the low points of this awful thread. Off2riorob (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, what I anchored was the revised or "softened" version, as the "Smurf" thing is currently the section title. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Only now I've had to anchor the other title too, since someone de-titled it. Oy! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Please, could we get over it? I'm sorry that I displayed my bad taste by using a title that made me smile while thinking of what I was writing about: a photo that I found deeply disconcerting. Because, honestly, I thought and still think he may have been photographed on his death-bed (the expression of the face, the position of the head, the blue skin). Or maybe the rabbi was made up for Purim and this is an incidental photo taken by on of his grandchildren? Anyway, I wanted to know if there was something special with this shocking (to me) picture. The title was meant to cheer myself up, and rise some smiles, nothing more sinister. --Insert coins (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

"No offense intended", but it would probably be better if people use their own web sites to cheer themselves up and "raise some smiles", and use this one to help write an encyclopedia, especially when it involves calling someone a "smurf" because some outside web site has a photo of them with a blue face. If I may comment as a non-administrator passerby, it is clear that IZAK acted properly and there is no point to this thread. Neutron (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Is this thread a prank? My understanding is that Debresser is a Chabad rabbi, and today is Saturday. It is beyond belief that he would be editing on the Jewish sabbath. Vasio (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
• This thread is both the most ridiculous, vaguely disturbing and yet the funniest thing on ANI in a long while. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I've been waiting for someone to say that it's the Smurfs that were dissed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty sure that BLP doesn't apply to blue-toned cartoon characters, but the way this thread is going ... Black Kite (t) (c) 20:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I didn't realize BLP applied to dead people, either, but I'm learning all kinds of new things today. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeshiva Smurf! No, Torah Smurf! Oh, pretend you weren't thinking it. 195.200.82.161 (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

"Say the secret word
and divide a hundred razzbuckniks.
It's a common word,
something you hear every day."
(Today's secret word is "proletariat".)

• Perhaps I need to make the point more plain. Debresser would not under any circumstances be editing today because it is a religious prohibition for him. It appears that someone has hacked his account and used it for this prank. Vasio (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No need to make a non-existing point. Shabbath is over here in Israel. Debresser (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

ברכת שנה טובה 195.200.82.161 (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Can we please get back to the real point at hand- are Smurfs (Smurves?) Jewish or not?! They wear head-coverings in-doors, someone is always trying to kill them (and he does seem like he might be German or at least with that robe maybe a member of the Spanish Inquisition!), Brainy Smurf- come on he's a typical stereotype!, and Papa Smurf (perhaps a rabbi?) has a good Hasidic beard going on and very wise, his sayings could be coming straight from the Talmud!Camelbinky (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That post is highly offensive to Gargamel and I demand that you be publicly horsewhipped for posting it. (and , everyone knows, the smurfs are godless communists and Papa Smurf represents Karl Marx) Beeblebrox (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Am I now in BLP-trouble with my offensive comment against Gargamel? Karl Marx was in fact Jewish... so we still can say Smurf's might be Jewish by heritage... Someone needs to write a book title- Smurfs and the Jewish-Communist Conspiracy... then I'm sure someone on Wikipedia will then use it as a source to show that Smurfs really are Jews and Communists.Camelbinky (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Karl Marx, although assumed to be atheistic, observed the Sabbath regularly.

Every Saturday, he would point to a calendar and say, "There it is." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The late Rabbi Shach obviously doesn't stand accused of structuring, orchestrating a denial-of-service attack, deceiving online gamers or supplying pseudoephedrine to illicit methamphetamine manufacturers (thanks to Breaking Bad for bringing that one to my attention), so I'm struggling to understand why the term would be deemed offensive in this context.

At the same time, I'm unable to ascertain why maintaining that wording remotely warranted an edit war, let alone a thread here. Honestly, this is one of the most inexplicable conflicts that I've encountered at Wikipedia (and indeed seems quite "lame"). —David Levy 04:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

When I think of "Smurfs" I think of these little blue cartoon characters, and that's presumably what the OP thought of when he saw that photo (one of several poorly-reproduced photos in that link). The younger kids might know the term "Smurfs" only from those derivations you posted, and thus didn't get the joke. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is a Smurf, wearing an official Smurf yarmulke. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, and with all that I still don't know what moment this photo is meant to represent or on what occasion it was taken. I should have chosen a boring title, that's for sure. --Insert coins (talk) 07:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I can understand a lack of familiarity with the internationally famous characters, but unless the word "smurf" is primarily a slur in some culture(s), I cannot understand why anyone would assume that its use on that page was intended as an insult.

But I also fail to understand why there was any need to restore that description after it was replaced. What difference does it make? —David Levy 07:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Colloidal silver - There, I said it. [54] --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

According to Hebrew Wikipedia, the Smurfs were accused of perpetuating antisemitic stereotypes.[55]. No source is provided for this accusation. RolandR (talk) 10:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Translated. The (Smurf) series has been accused of being anti-Semitic . According to this charge, Gergmal greedy, which deals with magic, with the even the big black hair, in fact reflects the anti-Semitic stereotype of the Jew who tries to take control of the Smurfs, the Gentiles seemingly harmless to anyone. Azraelא And, Ahatahthol English version is called Azrael (Azrael). Another fact that turning the evil smurf kind, with black hair color change in the "Indian" blond "Aryan." . In addition, all Smurfs wear on their heads caps, a cap similar to the Ku Klux Klan. There are a lot of web hits to this ant semite regard to Smurfs. Funny isn't it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

What's funny (NOT) is that if people go looking for insults, they are certain to find them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's the problem with Google translations. The word "af" can indeed mean "even"; but in this case, it meant "nose". By the way, my Israeli wife has just reminded me that the (very short) Yitzhak Shamir was frequently referred to by opponents and satirists as "the smurf". RolandR (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Response by IZAK

Hello to everyone and thanks for your input. The sub-text of this thread is troubling and its evolution is fascinating to watch: Insertion of irrelevant, silly material that will obviously be offensive, the usual tactic of blatant trolling covering it up with pseudo-self-righteous justifications incorrectly citing WP policies that are not to the point. Then when a justifiable and rational objection is made, and an attempt to correct it is made, something that's done thousands of times each day on WP, with no display of respect and no room for discussion is made, a mischievous and frivolous case is brought to ANI no less, falsely claiming "censorship" and wasting everybody's time. Then false charges are made against a user, in this case me, that have nothing to do with what is happening here. I never have been "anti-anything" on WP, unfortunately Debresser imagines himself to "embody" Chabad on WP and "therefore" falsely assumes that any edit that he dislikes is somehow "anti-Chabad" which is obvious hokum. It has been a busy time on the Jewish calendar, and I have urged Debresser to seek input from experienced Judaic editors first, some being admins, at WP:TALKJUDAISM before running to ANI any time he wants to get his way, and which I will now do seeing that he hasn't, so that we can get some more serious input how to resolve this matter. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• It may be worth noting that IZAK has just canvassed eight editors plus Wikiproject Judaism to come and weigh in on this discussion.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Which is not OK. On the other hand, this entire section is in incredibly bad taste. I have already commented about this above, and am not going to repeat myself. Hans Adler 23:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat

An IP has threatened to "sue my ass" for reverting a BLP violation that he inserted into Antonio Banderas. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 20:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

He has also threatened to sue Tommy2010. I've notified him of this thread. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 20:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked- 55 hours. We indef accounts for this, but the IP will likely be reassigned in two days. Courcelles 20:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Good thing he didn't threaten to sue the rest of him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hah... The Thing // Talk // Contribs 20:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, you'd get your pound of something ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Attempts to confuse other users/trolling

Special:Contributions/62.188.122.162 Special:Contributions/62.188.105.142 (and probably some other IPs) is spreading misinformation about overscan in the article talk and here.--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat from an IP

Figure someone might want to take a look at this, there's a legal threat although I'm not sure to whom it is directed, nor as to how seriously it should taken. Kind of funny read, really. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That was fast, looks like Sarek and Grandmasterka took care of things, thanks! --Nuujinn (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

This is related to an OTRS ticket, contact Ironholds (talk · contribs) for more. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I arrive. Essentially, to break it down, there are two concepts of the same name. The IP came up with the second concept, which is not covered. Apparently, if I'm following his logic, our coverage of the first concept constitutes libel and defamation, because any negativities associated with the first subject make him look bad. I have been completely unable to identify if the IP's concept is notable or even has coverage, and it may be that the law of diminishing replies should take hold. Ironholds (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It's worth noting that "sovereign citizen" types are pretty well known for undertaking bizarre litigation at the drop of a hat. We ought to be certain that the article isn't being adversely affected by this, so I advise going to legal threat blocks sooner rather than later. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Lists of names of non-notable people

When I encounter long lists of names of people, if the names are redlinked, or sometimes not linked at all, I remove them. I also usually have to put an "unsourced section" tag on the section of the page which contains the names. This is usually on school articles or town articles. If there are redlinked or blacklinked names which include sources which indicate that they are notable, even if they don't have articles, I tend to leave those alone. But I'm always getting into edit wars with people who revert me without discussion, or who seem to think that long lists of non-notable people, non-linked people, non-sourced people, are perfectly acceptable. Now tonight I've come across the Fraţii Buzeşti High School article. I did my usual, removing the non-notable people and putting an unsourced section tag. I was immediately reverted by User:Bci2, who didn't just restore the list, but removed the unsourced section tag, with the only explanation that "This is not original research. Please see cited references and also links. More will be added.". There are no sources, there are no links. There should not be more added until this is cleaned up. The most important thing, from a Wikipedia point of view, is the removal of the unsourced tag. Am I wrong here? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, some of those people aren't notable. And the links to the Romanian Wikipedia are untidy and in my opinion should be removed. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Concur with Everard and 'Chase me ladies'(!). Surely notable alumni are what is wanted here? And linking to a non-English language Wikipedia just disguises that there is no En.WP article on that person. If the editor intends to add articles on all those people perhaps? There are references now. For the record, Bci2 (talk · contribs · count) is an experienced editor. 8k+ edits edits - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 03:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That's what makes it even worse, not only an experienced editor, but a reviewer. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

List of names of non-notable people is an article just waiting to be written. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the links and instructed the editor to stop. A full class roster certainly flouts at least the spirit of BLP's requirement for privacy. If the person already has an article here, that's one thing, but we don't need everyone who ever went there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I see many additions of redlink names to lists of residents of some town, with some assertion of notability such as "Founded Mudville Bank" or "Vice President of Caterpillar" or "Member of such and such famous band (no article) or some other plausible job which might have allowed creation of an article, but without any reference. These pages often have a box at the top requesting that only names be added which have articles or are notable enough for articles. I consider removing them, with a note not to add them until the person has an article, since vanity additions or hoax additions would be very likely if it is a free-for-all as at present. Edison (talk) 04:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a common problem, there must be thousands, maybe tens of thousands of promotional or hoax entries. Dougweller (talk) 07:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

See WP:NLIST. DMacks (talk) 07:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I remove any name from a list of people that isn't either blue-linked or has a reliable source. I usually site WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NLIST, and/or WP:NOT. Myself and another editor are trying to systematically remove people without asserted and verified notability from TV station alumni lists; I think it's worth doing any time we have a list anywhere. While a person on a list doesn't have to meet the full WP:BIO notability criteria, there has to be some verification that the person 1) actually is an alumni/resident/former employee/etc. and 2) that they're more notable than Joe/Jane Average. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Usually the individual related wikiprojects will have an outline as to who should be considered for inclusion in their "alumni" or "notable residents" etc. sections. For example, Wikiproject schools keeps a detailed criteria for inclusion here.--Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 15:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Possibly compromised account?

I'm concerned to see this edit by Adam Cuerden: [56]. It's not really in character for him to make edits that basically amount to vandalism of a project page, and reviewing his recent edits, they seem to both be appropriate in tone and not to have any negative interactions with WP:FU that would've brought this about on his behalf. It was also out of character in that the edit summary does not contain just a section heading with no edit summary, but is rather entirely blank. That's also unusual for Adam. I'm rather concerned that the account has been compromised, and that someone else may be using it periodically without his knowledge. If this is not the case, and Adam did make these edits, the issue of vandalizing a project page is probably also one that needs to be addressed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that's just an example of bad humor, not an account compromise. I can even see where it's coming from, even though I don't think that edit belongs there. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I just talked to him today on commons, I'd assume he's in charge of the account. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I had travelled by bus, rail, and car for 11 hours that day, had gotten completely travel sick, and had been up for about 22 hours at that point. It is what I always think when I visit that page, and I thought it was effectively harmless. (yeah, pretty much drunk logic, only without the alcohol.) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell mass fully protecting templates

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

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

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

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

• There is a delicate balance. Protecting a template to prevent vandalism is all well and good, but if it keeps good-faith editors from contributing constructively, it can do more harm that good. I do, however, agree that HJ was acting in good faith, albeit a little hastily, and that the pitchforks and torches should be set down. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 06:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Just undo the big batch of protections that HJ just did.[57] Any templates that were already protected before that operation started can stay protected. Any templates that got along without protection up til then, don't need protection unless something actually happens. 67.119.12.29 (talk) 06:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• HJ, please curb your enthusiasm and stop showing up at as a subject of ANI discussion for a while, OK? Every admin who tries to get anything done gets hauled here eventually, but most of us try not to make a habit of it. BOLD is good policy for article improvement, less good for dealing with issues that affect things Wikipedia-wide. Jclemens (talk) 06:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Undo all of these protections, The logic used to get the list for the mass protections was Wikipedia_talk:Database_reports#Unprotected_Templates_by_Number_of_Transclusions, Which only takes into account the number of uses and nothing else, This is a wiki we shouldn't be locking things down because people might vandalism them (otherwise BLPS would of been done a long time ago). Wikipedia:HRT is only a guideline and not policy which was used as the reasons for the mass protections. And most of the ones I randomly checked when looking at the list were talk page related templates which imho should hardly ever be protected under this sense unless a clear pattern of vandalism is shown to of occur. Peachey88 ^{(T · C)} 07:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Expanding on Jclemens: the whole idea of BOLD is that on-wiki actions are supposedly easy to revert. The old notion of "adminship is no big deal" was that the same easy revertibility extended to admin actions (a page protected in error could be unprotected with a mouse click, etc). That goes out the window when any kind of automation is involved, and bad edits/actions happen faster than other editors can undo them. Doing anything like that without prior discussion is almost always a big error in judgment, and users who have done ill-advised automated ops and had the additional bad judgment to defend them afterwards have caused some of the worst and stupidest drama on Wikipedia. (Think of the date delinking arbitration, the Betacommand saga, etc). HJ Mitchell makes a remorseful edit summary, which is a good sign.[58] I think the main thing for any automation user to remember before being BOLD is to ask him/herself, "how easy is it going to be for other people to undo this?". If your action can't be undone in a few clicks, BOLD does not apply, so discuss it with someone else first. 67.119.12.29 (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Fully agree that a major sticking point here is that the task was at least semi-automated. I think any editor or admin planning any sort of mass automation task should definitely seek consensus for it first. Strange Passerby (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• A good editor (acting in good faith) that edited quite boldly... and made a "controversial" decision. HJ: please make it right, brother ;> Doc9871 (talk) 08:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment as someone who has campaigned on this page against protection I don't really think this is all bad. With articles protection should be kept to a minimum so that IP users can edit without an account and so that new users can edit the pages without having to jump through lots of hoops and bureaucracy to get 'confirmed' status. Without new editors Wikipedia will die as it always needs new editors and without lots of unprotected pages you have a chicken and egg situation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related issue (kind of...)

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

Protection policy

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

Resolution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, the whole "let's make the vandals jobs' easier" proposal. Do you notice that the anon jumps in and agrees immediately? No, bad plan. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can write a script for this if an admin (preferably with bot operation experience) wants to run it. I'd much rather that HJ self-reverted though, and he might just be offline. He is online and editing[59] so he is apparently ignoring his obligation to be responsive to these comments. If that's the case, I'd thought this was a WP:TROUT situation, but am beginning to think his edit summary comment about desysopping[60] might point to the necessary course of action. If that happens, it should be accompanied by removal of access to Twinkle and other automation. 67.119.12.29 (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

I left a trout.[61] 67.119.12.29 (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Why a couple of days? He last edited just a few minutes ago.[62] All I've asked is that he post something here about his intentions towards this matter. 67.119.12.29 (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Boatscaptain and Black Mesa (video game)

Boatscaptain (talk · contribs)

I am starting to lose my cool over an issue with this user, he has been trying to insert a link [article and talk page] to images hosted on a user submitted website which are not licensed by the copyright owners, a direct violation of WP:ELNEVER point 1, see whole discussion here. User is not listening to what I have been saying to him, even now going on the tangent insisting the images are public domain. User is making it increasingly difficult to assume good faith, even early on describing legit edits as vandalism [63], agenda accusations when asked to explain his own edits [64], problematic biased edits such as this [65]. Rehevkor ✉ 03:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

As a party who has at times been involved in this discussion I'll add that Boatscaptain at one point responded to my placing a 3RR notice on his Talk page[66] with reciprocity. At this point it is very difficult for me to believe that Boatscaptain is intending to edit with good faith rather than being argumentative. Unfortunately other editors have not gotten involved in the current discussion regarding Boatscaptain's edits, which might relieve some of the tension, or at least provide stronger evidence of consensus that the edits are inappropriate. Doniago (talk) 04:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to those that chimed in on the discussion and his talk page, hopefully he'll drop the stick now. Rehevkor ✉ 11:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

NPOV troll running a move proposal

this is a copy and paste from the help desk

Is it possible that a different admin can over look this move proposal, as you can see here it is currently being lead by a liar.--intraining ^{Jack In} 09:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I see you being incivil both there and on the help-desk, and then even here after help-desk called you on it. I see people (including you) posting opinions on how they'd like something to be but without providing rational support even though it's a discussion not a vote. I see people (including you) posting data/evidence and rationally discussing it. I don't see a need for admin action at this time. DMacks (talk) 09:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

As it stands now there is really no point of putting any rational behind any discussion as anthony appleyard just goes about his own agenda, all i'm asking is for a nutrel admin to over-look this move proposal, i'm willing to accept any result as long as it's not by someone who says they have never heard of Bing (search engine) and is clearly lieing.--intraining ^{Jack In} 09:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Req-moves aren't led by someone, they are proposed and then someone else handles the closure a week later based on the strength of the reasons given. I see a legitimate dispute over page-naming, and a discussion started to sort it out (getting input from uninvolved editors). Isn't that exactly what you want: others' input on the topic and uninvolved-admin handling of the result? It shouldn't matter who has heard of what at all...that's WP:OR and opinion. Consider this your final civility warning--we comment on article content, not editors. DMacks (talk) 09:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

O.K that sounds good I didn't know someone else handles the closure, my bad i'll crawl back under my rock now:).--intraining ^{Jack In} 09:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You'd better do that as I will block you if you continue these personal attacks. Anthony simply moved a dab page to a different name last year, and accusing him of lying because he didn't remember one of the entries on that page is asking for a block. Please strike through your comments. Dougweller (talk) 10:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• • • I missed this [67] where he undid a redirect in June 2009 that someone had made. But he still can't be expected to remember reverting someone on something trivial, and he did not change Bing to this disambiguation page, his revert there simply restored the status quo. Dougweller (talk) 10:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Refering to Anthony Appleyard as a blatent liar is and was totally uncalled for on my behalf. I obviously don't have all the facts and even if I did it is way over the top; after all we are all Wikipedians here we can work this out without having to call people names, I feel bad I know AA is a admin here and has taken on alot over the 5+ years he has been here. I don't mean to come across as an asshole and i'm sorry that I come across that way sometimes. At the end of the day it doesn't mean jack shit to me wether Bing (search engine) is redirected to Bing or not but I am still entitled to my opinion and I do feel that the search term Bing should show up as Bing the search engine. I will stay out of it from now on. Anthony Appleyard I am sorry mate.--intraining ^{Jack In} 11:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

24 hour church of elvis

There was a wiki page that came up under the search term "church of elvis" and "24 Hour Church of Elvis* that was on wikipedia for almost or even over a decade. I am the inventor of the church of elvis and I found out the page has been deleted through facebook. At the time I looked about two weeks ago there was still a log that said advertising was the reason for the deletion. I DID correct incorrect content but there were many many versions of the page before that that could have been reverted to rather than deleting the page. All I did was correct inaccuracies, but it seems draconian to delete the entire reference. It is a work of art and the original page was made without my input and before I had ever heard of wikipedia, with gross inaccuracies that were on the internet for years before I learned of their existence. Since I put up with the consequences of the inaccuracy for so long, why can't I reap the benefit of an accurate page now that I have a new location and the likelihood that people will want to use wikipedia for information about my artwork--the world's first 24 hour coin-operated art gallery--will increase. THank you!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.102.40.185 (talk) 10:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

To save people some time, the article which was deleted had its contents moved to User:WWB/24_Hour_Church_of_Elvis. There was certainly justification for deleting the page. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The article was actually created six years ago, and it seems it hasn't had references for all that time. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"The article" we're talking about was 24 Hour Church of Elvis in mainspace before being userfied. DMacks (talk) 10:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Uh, Fastily did reply. It looks like they were as confused as I was when I tried to work out what was going on ;-) (And thanks to BW and GW for their comments - I am now slightly less confused). TFOWR 10:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Could the original poster clarify if the issue is resolved now ("where the content went") or if there is still a question of whether it should have been removed from mainspace (should probably go to WP:DRV)? DMacks (talk) 10:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Revelation of personal identity, and lot more

User:Sulmues reveled my personal name, changed other people comments, remove strike from the comment of the blocked indef DE sockpuppet, and all of that on the Kosovo talk page, that is part of the ARBMAC restrictions. My real name was my username before, so he know it from there. I request urgent action, and deletion of my personal name from this comment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kosovo&diff=prev&oldid=384295234

For more, i am here. WhiteWriter ^speaks 11:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I've revision-deleted the edit summary. My reading ot WP:OUTING is that this incident was likely inadvertent and non-malicious, and so I have not blocked the editor responsible. As always, I defer to more-clueful folk than what I am. TFOWR 11:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I would ask from you to inform user that i dont want this to happen never again. And what about the rest of my post? Also, more-clueful folk? What? :))) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 11:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

O, you did! :) Thanks! :) -WhiteWriter ^speaks 11:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Already done ;-) The "more clueful folk" comment was addressed to those editors who know more about WP:OUTING than me, or editors (like yourself) who may know whether Sulmues has done stuff like this before. I've assumed that this is the first incident: if not, a block may well be in order. TFOWR 11:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I had no idea that this would be sanctionable: The only time I have seen this is when another user (a Greek editor) was called by a name other than his prior nick. I dropped by WhiteWriter's talkpage to ask him about how he can make [[68] such an edit], and called him by his prior nick: had no clue that was his own name. I have been editing in two years now and saw WhiteWriters's prior nick hundreds of times. His track is still there in his history and his signatures are written thousand of times with the old name. I have communicated with him under that nick dozens of times. His edits can still be seen under that nick and the signature is there. What I advise to him is Wikipedia:CLEANSTART#CLEANSTART if he wants to lose all his prior track. Lots of other people that have long time known him like I have may fall under the same trap. Still, I apologize: if that's what WhiteWriter wants to be called now, that's fine with me. Thank you for letting me know. --Sulmues ^(talk) 16:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR and Afterwriting

Sometime ago, I blocked an editor for "personal attacks or harassment". Since then I've had both their talkpage, and the talkpage of other editors involved, on my watchlist. Earlier today I saw this comment and a short while later issued this warning. Since then there has been some back-and-forth between Afterwriting (talk) and myself, at both Afterwriting's talkpage and at mine. Afterwriting is clearly unhappy with my handling of the incident, so I'm raising it here for review. TFOWR 13:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think threatening a block after a single instance and a single warning for repeats is a bit too rash (I think a warning was enough, no need to mention anything about blocking), but I think the claim you quote is way overstated. Nothing to worry about here on your part, from what I can see. On the other hand, I'd suggest their attitude towards you is getting quite heated, so it may be time to just stop responding and/or let another admin handle it. Regards, Strange Passerby (talk) 13:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Tend to agree with StP. If they keep their grousing to their own talk page, as long as they are not personally abusive, I'd ignore it. We do not insist on perfect harmony here.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I am appalled at user's behavior.TFOWR is none of the best admins it has been my pleasure to deal with. YOu have been disrespectful user and she will very politely block you, sometimes with tongue in cheek humor. Give it up. Be civil. You lost this battle with your first comment. DocOfSoc (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Strange Passerby; you may have jumped to warning about a block too soon, making the user defensive; it probably would have been better to use something like {{uw-npa1}} or a handwritten message to that effect. I've been watching the discussion on your talkpage though TFOWR, and Afterwriting has been pretty uncivil and made some pretty bold accusations when I don't see anything wrong with your actions except perhaps slightly jumping the gun. I would suggest simply ignoring or reverting the comments on your talk page until the user calms down enough to take part in civil discussion. Another admin can handle it in the meantime, if necessary. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I certainly don't intend to exacerbate the situation further, and I take on board the (several) comments about rashness - I shouldn't have mentioned blocks in my warning. Thanks again. TFOWR 13:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine for me; Afterwriting should take his admonishing in good faith. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I stand by every comment that I have made about this administrator's appalling behaviour - regardless of how "heated" you imagine that I have expressed them. This administrator should also take such "admonishing in good faith". Wikipedia can do without administrators who react in this way to ordinary editors. My description of a persistently disruptive and abusive editor as an "immature twirp" ( on my talk page page and to another editor ) may well be uncivil - as I admitted in my original response - but unnecessarily provocative reactions by an administrator that far outweigh the crime are also uncivil and an abuse of other editors. Administrators aren't above the policies on incivility and they should be taken to account for their own mistakes when required - which is what I have done. You can legalistically refer to all the policies you like but there is still no excuse for this administrator's behaviour - and the attempts by some of you to do so only indicates how out of touch some administrators can be with the difficulties that regular editors have in dealing with persistently disruptive and abusive editors. Afterwriting (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion was virtually ended, Underwriter. Why continue to attack? I again vouch for this Admin's integrity and fairness. Your attack above is rash and uncalled for. Admin is human , never abusive and had already backed down. YOU need a chill pill.DocOfSoc (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Before this is archived, may I suggest a change of header as it is clearly over the top, and definetly uncalled for. I don't understand why this was not immediately changed.DocOfSoc (talk) 00:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To clarify, Afterwriting, the issue is that calling another editor an "immature twirp" isn't simply uncivil, it can also be interpreted as a personal attack. Looking at your interaction, you have been repeatedly uncivil to TFOWR and their responses have been perfectly civil, including advising you of the proper procedure to seek community opinion on their behaviour. Now you have that community consensus: you need to calm down and stop accusing TFOWR of being an evil rouge admin because they warned you that you could be blocked for making personal attacks when perhaps a simple warning that it was against policy would have sufficed. You're quite right that TFOWR isn't exempt from WP:CIVIL, and neither are you. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the harm in the heading Doc; it's a quote from Afterwriting, and TFOWR, the target of the comment, was the one to make it the heading. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The heading could well be more neutral; I've amended it to reflect the editors involved. I've added an {{anchor}} lest anyone worry about links. (Unlikely, but possible). TFOWR 00:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Civility of User:Kitchen Knife

Resolved

 – Nothing for an admin to do here - Needs to be taken through the dispute resolution process, rather than ANI. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack

This user has been engaged in a dispute of wether the 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack was actually "bioterror." which has gotten quite Tedious and demanding his OR be included over reliable secondary sourceing and now engaging in personal attacks Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC) user notified Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that is a PA, but given Ling Nut's accomplishments, it is surely way off base!--Wehwalt (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you find that [[User talk:Weaponbb7|] is a little biased and his introduction of this complaint is incivil and manipulative. I have stated as have others that the article uses the emotive and depreciated term terrorism. There are several references which uses other terms. A discussion has been going on, not for that long, but recently user User:Ling.Nut joined in and immediately became incivil. I believe the Weaponbb7 should be censured in someway for trying to use this process to end and debate in favour of the POV he holds--Kitchen Knife (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see diffs showing Weaponbb7's "bias", because looking at the talk page I'm not seeing it. I am seeing several editors (Ling.Nut, Cirt, Weaponbb7) trying to explain why the article is titled as it is. Note that this page will not consider content disputes, so I do not believe that Weaponbb7 could use this process to end the debate in favour of "his POV". Also note that, in my (limited) experience with Weaponbb7, they have been unfailingly neutral - I encountered them through a WP:3O request affecting a page I'd protected, and was very impressed with their handling of the WP:3O issue. TFOWR 14:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

He states "demanding his OR be included over reliable secondary sourcing" I have not demanded anything at all. I have provided reliable references of my own, so characterising my comments as OR is very biased. He states "and now engaging in personal attacks". He could quite easily end the debate buy getting me blocked. What his enactment of this process does is bring unwarranted pressure to bear on me and would at the least give some credence to his claims that my view was OR all of which would count against my comments in the debate. It is this that leads me to beleive he has a POV to protect--Kitchen Knife (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Weapon is a bit fast to pull the admin switch, but most likely he will learn. I see nothing to be done here. KK, if you are making no headway with your arguments, there are times when you should just realize you aren't going to gain consensus, and move on to the next area.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from Xyz231

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

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

Disruptive editing from Wiki Historian N OH

Wiki Historian N OH (talk · contribs) has been engaged in many incidences of abusive editing, edit-warring, POV-pushing, and extremely rude communication with his peers - including, but not limited to personal attacks and often irrelevant, trolling comments. See for a small sample: [69][70][71][72][73][74]. He has been adding quite controversial and often misplaced and irrelevant material to various articles for some time, and has already been on the receiving end of at least 2 blocks so far that I can see, showing complete disregard for the warnings given to him by admins and regular users alike. There is plenty more to see on his talk page and a routine check through his user contribs. This user seems to have no intention of adhering to even the most basic tenets of Wikipedia, and seems to view anyone who disagrees with him as targets for ranting and edit-warring. Any help would be appreciated. KaySL (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

As one of the targets of Wiki Historian N OH (talk · contribs)'s attacks, I definitely agree. The addition of biased and controversial content in Bisexual community and Bisexuality would have better been discussed in the talk pages. Furthermore, edit wars seems to be nothing new for the user (see previous blocks). Kedster (talk / contribs) 16:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The user has previously caused the same level of disruption at the Marysville, Ohio article and was blocked there. Watch for sockpuppets from this user as he has a history sockpuppetry. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is this coming up now? Except for one incident, everything that you cite is at least four months old, and this user isn't on such a short string that we block for a single incident. Nyttend (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It's coming up now because he continues to make disruptive edits, as well as personal attacks against fellow editors and completely disregards their constructive efforts. Add to that the fact that on numerous occasions he has blanked large sections of articles with no justification... Take a look for yourself, even if just at his talk page. This user is patently not going to pay heed to any consensus and will continue to edit-war on the articles where the consensus is against him. Also, are you saying that those older offences are to be overlooked simply because nobody reported them sooner? Is "LOL! Some people need a woman. And that doesn't mean going and raping them like a Bolshevik because they wouldn't touch you otherwise." an acceptable slur to be hurling at his peers? Or calling them homosexual supremacists simply for excising completely irrelevant cruft from an article? You'd think the two previous bans would've kicked some sense into him, but apparently not. To Neutralhomer: thanks for the info on the sockpuppetry; it's news to me. KaySL (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

user:69.227.69.115

I'd be tempted to block 69.227.69.115 (talk · contribs) for this edit [75] if I wasn't involved (i.e he reverted me calling my replacing a tag vandalism). That's really OTT. Dougweller (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Calling you an impolite name (edit filter won't let me put it here) wasn't too bright either. FWIW, the article is about a living person and has no secondary sources, so I blp-prodded it. WP is not a press agency. 67.119.12.29 (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually the name was aimed at OlEnglish. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I've given the IP a 4im warning for personal attacks. Banhammer primed and ready. Favonian (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I missed that it actually does has a source, so I took out the prod and cleaned up some promotion in the article. I suspect the original contributor User:Zos128 has a COI.[76] See also the cited interview,

HipHopCanada: Do you think that having a presence on-line through multiple mediums has played a major role in building your career?

Snak the Ripper:For sure, the Internet is my prime tool. Without YouTube, Facebook and MySpace, it’s like the caveman era. A lot of rappers these days aren’t even up on their Internet game.

I'm thinking of prodding the article even though the contributor unprodded it right after it was created (but hasn't been around since then). It looks like a hit and run spam, more or less. 67.119.12.29 (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Pagemove vandalism needs repair

Resolved

 – —Soap— 18:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

GM 2.5 Liter inline-4 engine (Iron Duke) needs to be moved back to its original title at GM Iron Duke engine. I reverted this move once, and the user who moved it proceeded to move the page several more times to muddy the edit histories and make it impossible for a non-admin to fix.

Thank you. --Sable232 (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I moved the page back to its original location. I am not sure that the user was vandalizing the page, but it would be nice if any further moves were held off until a move discussion was opened and closed. NW (Talk) 18:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Jaranwala

User:Ndhaq-[77][78] [79] [80] has added these promotional materials to the Jaranwala article. Some other I.P.s have also been adding similar material to this article. I have left their diffs on the article talk page. This user was previously blocked for similar activities and is now back to his antics. It appears to be a single purpose account. The other I.P.s may or may not be his socks. It appears that his I.P. was also blocked previously.-Civilizededucation^talk 18:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see User Talk:Ndhaq, Permblock may be merited.-Civilizededucation^talk 00:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Freakshownerd

Freakshownerd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked as a CoM sockpuppet although discussion at RFAR and the talkpage suggest that this outcome is not widely accepted. Despite this, and no doubt due to FSN's aggressive and incivil response to the block, there seems to be a lack of interest within the admin community to review his unblock request and/or unblock him. Arbcom seem rather slow reaching a definitive conclusion at the RFAR request so I think we need to take this forward as a community. I'm kinda thinking that the fact that no admin can be found to unblock FSN means that he is now defacto community banned. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'll disagree with this. People aren't unblocking because ARBCOM is involved, or so reads a response to the last unblock request. Is this a CoM sock? I see no clear evidence of that. Has this user done anything that justifies an indefinite block or community ban? I've seen no evidence of that either. I think that at least one person responding on his webpage is being less than helpful at this point and should disengage. I personally would favor an unblock. Right now the whole thing is reminding me of some kind of authoritarian dystopia where you're guilty of a crime, we just haven't picked which one yet. Those that wish him to stay blocked should identify the crime worthy of the block and present evidence of it. Hobit (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I think the problem is that FSN has been so unpleasant no-one wants to take responsibility for unblocking him. And I can't say I blame them either. Either way, I brought this here because we can't leave the unblock notice unreviewed forever. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• I would favor unblocking; considering his situation, I don't find it particularly surprising that he may have become unpleasant. Ucucha 19:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • To be honest, he's actually been on his (relative) best behavior since the block. He was much more unpleasant beforehand. Then again, I was on the receiving end of a lot of the unpleasantness, so take what I say with that grain of salt. MastCell ^Talk 20:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Problem here is that the ball is basically in ArbCom's court, and they can't seem to decide what to do with it. Some of them are still unconvinced of the sockpuppetry despite the mountain of behavioral evidence, yet they haven't overturned my block. Some seem to be suggesting that we leave him block without worrying about if it is CoM or not. ArbCom is sending mixed signals on this one, I've been trying to get them to give a more direct response that actually reflects a decision by the committee as opposed to the opinion of individual arbs, but that has not happened yet. I suggest that FSN's unblock be placed "on hold" until ArbCom makes a definitive decision, and this discussion likewise be placed on hold since this is already before the committee. Perhaps the extra pressure will lead to decisive action. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Where is that discussion at? I know I've read it before a while back, but I can't find it. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
    • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ChildofMidnight/Archive - Off2riorob (talk) 20:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• I had the distinct displeasure of being one of the ones to bear the brunt of CoM's aggressive tactics last year, and to say that FSN's own aggression is eerily similar is a colossal understatement. The disparate IPs give pause, but the style, manner, and the peculiar article overlaps at obscure topics is overwhelming IMO. I still hope that some of the Arbs who commented early will reconsider some of the later evidence presented, once the climate change case wraps up. Tarc (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Unblocking may help to settle the sock allegations. I don't think the climate change case will wrap up anytime soon. There were big problems with the original PD and one of the drafting Arbitrators has resigned. We're basically starting all over again with many new PDs being added which approach the problem from a different angle than the previous PD. Count Iblis (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

What are you referring to? I don't see any strong connection with the climate change ArbCom case. Ucucha 20:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep blocked, unacceptable editor independently of the sock stuff. 67.119.12.29 (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The short of ArbCom's position: The link with CoM is tenuous and circumstantial enough that sanctionning CoM for socking may not be justifiable. That Freakshownerd's own behavior may warrant a block or a ban is not in question, and we feel can be handled within the normal community processes. — Coren ^(talk) 20:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. So, taking that away, the user has a fourty eight hour block and perhaps we should be looking at a week from when he was blocked or under the circumstances, unblocking on a short rope, perhaps with a mentor in an attempt to keep him out of trouble. Off2riorob (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• I think it's very unlikely that Freakshownerd is a sockpuppet of ChildofMidnight. That said, Freakshownerd is one of the most unrelentingly unpleasant, abusive, and hostile editors I've encountered in my years on Wikipedia. And it's not an isolated interpersonal dispute between us - a brief skim of Freakshownerd's interactions shows his combative and hostile approach to virtually every other editor he's encountered. He edits very heavily, and it's taken quite a bit of effort on the part of other editors to clean up the messes he's created.

  By comparison, ChildOfMidnight had some redeeming qualities - I'd sooner unblock him than Freakshownerd. I've been on the receiving end of unpleasantness from Freakshownerd, so this is in no way an "uninvolved" opinion, but I do feel strongly that this editor is a remarkably poor fit for Wikipedia, sockpuppetry claims notwithstanding. I would oppose an unblock. At a bare minimum, if he's unblocked, there should be some kind of admin oversight in palce going forward, to address the problems with his editing before they get to the point they've reached in the past. MastCell ^Talk 20:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

From what I have seen most of his insults were launched after being blocked. User seems to create a fair few articles that were sent to AFD after his blocking as a sock block evader and many wqere closed early on those grounds. Off2riorob (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• So how the hell is a reviewing admin supposed to react to this? The editor is blocked as a sock, yet quite possibly isn't, ArbCom thinks it's tenuous, yet the editor has been fairly abusive, but quite a bit of that was after the block, so somewhat understandable. There's no right answer to this, is there? No wonder no-one will touch it with a ten-foot pole. Well, I'm going to bed now, but if it's still outstanding in the morning, I'd be tempted to unblock with conditions that any violations of CIVIL, NPA or frankly anything else would see the block re-instated. Anyone agree? Black Kite (t) (c) 23:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm tempted to put a sub-section heading on this entitled "Poll: Black Kite is going to bed now. Who agrees?" But I'm resisting mightily. If you do run such a poll, consider me opposed. You are clearly not going to bed. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • As I see it, the sock block has two separate considerations:
    • Is it unfair to Freakshownerd to block him/her as a COM sock, given that the socking case against Freakshownerd is substantial but apparently not airtight.
    • Is it unfair to Child of Midnight to extend his/her arbitration-imposed site ban because of alleged socking via Freakshownerd, given that the socking case against Freakshownerd is substantial but apparently not airtight.

I don't think those actions require identical levels of evidence. For the first, the duck test as usually practiced (plus the persistently abusive editing) is good enough. For the second, (going by apparent arbcom practices, here and in say the Mantanmorland case) apparently something like an OJ Simpson trial is required. My conclusion is keep FSN blocked, but don't extend COM's ban absent new developments. They are both awful editors (or the same awful editor as the case may be) no matter what. 67.119.12.29 (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• support block and support sock puppet connection. Extend CoMs duration. He was caught socking once already. I just had a read of the SPI, and it is pretty convincing. The obscure overlap, especially that one article speaks volumes. Behavioural styles, etc are far too similar. Especially is comment of "the usual suspects". This user hasn't been here long enough to have a list of "the usual suspects".--Crossmr (talk) 00:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Assuming this is a CoM sock (and it sounds like it is) revert CoM's block to indefinite; this is the second sock account he's made (or at least that has been found). HalfShadow 00:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I'd also point out a connection was missed. There is wikistalk overlap between CoMs previous sock and the new sock [81] Third sock? I see two on the arbcom page, freakshow, electroshox, what's the other one?--Crossmr (talk) 00:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
      • My mistake; I wasn't aware he'd been caught so long ago, I though this was a fresh sock. HalfShadow 00:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Naturalpsychology

Moved from WP:AN

User talk:Naturalpsychology has used an example naming me in a false and inappropriate way.[82] He has compared actual accusations made again JWs with hypothetical accusations against me in a manner which implies that both accusations have been made. I would like the edit deleted.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I have some issues with this complaint; first, is that it is on the wrong noticeboard - WP:ANI is where admins look at issues regarding possible policy violations - and, secondly, that the other party has not been notified as is required on either board. The third, and in my view most relevant, issue is that the complaint is groundless (which is why I am not inclined to transfer this to ANI); It is a simple content dispute in which the other party is suggesting that noting allegations without good sources and no allowance for any rebuttal may result in an unbalanced article, by way of exampling that if they were to write only allegations regarding you without any rebuttal that you would feel that the content is prejudiced. Nothing that they have said indicates that the comments they made regarding you were in any way correct, or that they were going to place the allegations in article space. This is a frivolous complaint, as well as being in the wrong place and not advised to the other party. I suggest that you continue to civilly discuss the issue regarding the content dispute, without the distraction of misrepresenting the other party and WP policies. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh, I would hardly call it groundless. It was a severe personal attack, as well as being very WP:POINTy. I'm going to move this to ANI now. Whether it was intended as an actual accusation or not, the user themselves admitted that their own statement was "slanderous" (though libellous would be more accurate), which makes it a pretty clear WP:NPA violation and a WP:POINTy comment. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be a severe personal attack if he wrote at Crticisms of Jeffro that the account holder was alleged to do those things (with a reference), but there is no such article and they have not been made. It is an example, used to illustrate a point (not a WP:POINT) regarding placing unrefuted allegations into article space leading to possible WP:NPOV concerns. Where is the "admission" that such allegations were slanderous/libellious? There is a difference between saying "If I were to allege..." and "I allege..." when illustrating an argument. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I have also updated the editor concerned with the new venue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Quotes that the user admits it's slanderous: That is not damaging your reputation or slandering you? Posting that in public? ... So, it most definitely damages your reputation.

How you can claim that an attack is not an attack if they make "hypothetical" insinuations that another editor is a paedophile, felon, etc., I'll never know. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The question marks at the end of the first two quotes is indicating that the remarks are points of discussion, not allegations of themselves. If I were to ask you if you would feel anxious if you were in the path of a runaway truck, I am not threatening to run you down - I am using an example to make a point. Same thing, Naturalpsychology is asking Jeffro if they would be comfortable to have allegations made against them with no countering rebuttals. They are not saying those example allegations have any basis in truth, they are making a point about npov when serious allegations are noted without any regard to a response. It is a content dispute. Really. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Naturalpsychology is clearly advancing a hypothetical situation - "If I said this about you, you wouldn't like it. If I said that someone had said this about you, you wouldn't like it any better." He's not saying that Jeffro is any of these things, in fact, the whole point is that Jeffro isn't any of these things. He's objecting to the addition of allegations about JWs where the alleger (not the editor adding it) has not given any details to support the allegation. No comment as to the reliability of the sources that the editor adding the information is using, but they need to be good ones. The only time it could be construed as some kind of PA is when he asks if Jeffro has had a problem with JW's in the past, but I would have said that was more of a hypothetical query myself. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd point out that it appears likely that the editor under scrutiny here went to some effort in phrasing the subject comment in the english language, but of course, someone might point out (in similar fashion) that the OP is only concerned about two of the hypothetical assertions ("both") and not all four. This is easy -- both parties (perhaps others) should relax with some tea, and AGF. Steveozone (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• It's not an attack, just imprudent language. The ed is commenting that accusing the JVs of what they are being accused of in the article is just as absurd as accusing one the the WP editors with being [all sorts of nasty things]. Irony like that around here tends to be misinterpreted, not matter how obvious it is--as seen here. The solution is to avoid using each other as examples about article content, even ironically or in jest. In commenting, it is necessary to assume that nobody here reads carefully, has a sense of humor, or is willing to consider the possibility of innocent intentions. This does rather inhibit the way many of us talk, but that is the way it goes, apparently. DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • DGG, those comments were somewhat unnecessary. I read the comment carefully, I have a sense of humour, and I understand the intentions. But that doesn't change the fact that making such claims, "hypothetical" or "ironic" or otherwise, was unnecessary and could easily be interpreted as a personal attack. Of all ways to illustrate the argument, why was it necessary to choose to make unfounded (albeit "hypothetical") claims of another editor's illegal activities? It's simply demeaning and if not an outright personal attack, then at least uncivil. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it's still none of those things. It is no more than an extension of the simple English expression "You wouldn't like it if I said that about you." The whole point is that NP does not believe that JWs (or Jeffro) are wifebeaters, child molesters, litterbugs or whatever else it was they were accused of, and it is really hard to see how that paragraph could be read any other way. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Loansbreak's problematic edits

The entire edit history of Loansbreak (talk · contribs) has been to make changes to population figures for certain South Asian cities, tribes, regions, etc., all without any sourcing. I caught two cases of outright vandalism, which I've reverted, but I have no idea if any of their population edits are correct or not. I'm pretty suspicious that all of their edits are vandalism, but I have no idea. Can somebody with knowledge of India and Pakistani populations take a look? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I've just reverted a few of their edits as they're making substantial unsourced changes to figures in the article; I don't think any admin attention is necessary at this point as there's no reason to suspect that these edits were not made in good faith, but the user does need to be made aware of the fact that changes like these need to be reliably sourced. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Zuggernaut - Canvassing to try and influence debate

Could an admin please take a look at the actions of Zuggernaut. This editor has made several problematic alterations to articles which have been undone and are being debated on the talk pages of the relevant articles. He has now posted on certain wikiprojects which have no relation to the specific debates, in order to try and stack the debate. [83] and [84] and [85], that is on top of posting about it on the Indian related articles noticeboard. This is clearly 1 sided canvassing to further his agenda. Any assistance would be helpful thanks. I will inform the user about this post, and the two articles impacted. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. None of my edits can be classified as problematic as logs, history and diffs show. I have merely followed WP:BOLD and more than 99% of my edits have been accepted. When they haven't I've taken the discussion to the talk pages. Two such discussions are at the articles stated by the complainant. I have posted on relevant project talk pages and simply invited editors to join in forming consensus. I doubt this can be called biased canvassing or anything like that. Both posts are here [86] [87]. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've invited people in a neutral way. I have not asked them to vote one way or the other. I found that the featured article British Empire article had a Eurocentric view. I made some changes over the last few days to fix that [88][89][90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96]. Some of the contents were offensive - liker terming Indians in India "natives", reversing sequences to emphasize European aspects only. I hope you are not mad because those changes were reversed by me. I also hope that you are not mad because I have a different POV. Let the admins look at diffs/history/logs and decide for themselves. Zuggernaut (talk) 00:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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