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)

If no one is objecting then..

Might I edit the header sub-page to include this template for a trial run?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Support/Oppose/etc c.c— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me, and if you could whip up something similar for RfPP (number of oustanding reports > 6 for example) that might be good. GedUK  12:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me, if it turns out to be a problem we can always turn it off again and figure it out. But it's worth testing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ged, I actually don't think the RfPP one could be done, since when a request is fulfilled/denied, it isn't removed from the page like user reports from AIV. It would require a bot to update the template in regards to finding how much requests were still open.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

..Alright, since there has been no objections, adding it in, then.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Block review: User:Wikid77, violation of topic ban

Unresolved

Please see RegentsPark's talk's talkpage.

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed draft of topic ban

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ready for admin intervention

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Replies by Wikid77

Reply from User:Wikid77

copied from User_talk:Wikid77

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

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

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

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

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

Wikid77 reply on proposed topic ban

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

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

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

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

That's what the banning admin actually said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New comment from Wikid77

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

• I apologize for posting 1 or 2 days before the end date of the prior topic ban, because based on past hostile reactions, I should have asked an admin for the exact date when in doubt about anything in the hostile area.
• I acknowledge how "Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher" has become a severe hornets nest of intense disputes, so I will refrain from posting several major suggestions there at one time.
• I will work to change policies to recommend topic-ban periods be given as 30-day or 90-day to avoid "November 30 to February 30" types of end-date confusion.
• I will work to further adjust policy WP:CANVAS to indicate how asking one admin for advice is NOT improper canvassing. There seems to be a perception that asking another admin is an attempt to force the outcome of a decision.
• I will work to create an essay "Anticipating hostile reactions" which warns to ask admins about uncertain details, or wait an extra day (or 2) when a deadline date could be argued as a technicality. Also, I will note the way many hostile feelings have remained, beyond 4-9 months after a dispute, and how people should expect severely hostile reactions far greater than might seem normal: repressed rage does not abate simply because several months have passed, so beware a repeat of hostilities which might require intervention by admins and disruption of their work. What might seem a minor detail could become a major point of controversy, during hostile times.
• I will work on adjusting the WP "mandatory sentencing" so that ending a topic ban 1 day early is met with a relatively strong warning, then a meted block, to avoid the perception of allowing a feeding frenzy of capricious sanctions to be triggered by a 1-day early violation.
• I feel that these numerous actions are needed, because people are expecting large, specific changes to be made, on my part, as an implicit outcome of ANI discussions.

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

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

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

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

Conclude this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HJ Mitchell mass fully protecting templates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related issue (kind of...)

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

Protection policy

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

Resolution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reverting

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

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

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

Resolution revisited

Background

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

Issue

There is broad consensus, above, that:

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

Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Upon the Flooding of RC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

new list

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding the database report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disruptive editing from Xyz231

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Incivility and personal attacks towards other editors

Instead of opening another case on another noticeboard, I feel this is the proper place to bring up this editors further incivility towards other editors. Here are some diffs of this users blatant disregard of policies and guidelines regarding civility, personal attacks, assuming bad faith, conflict of interest, and ownership of articles. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26].

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

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

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

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

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

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: [27][28][29][30][31][32]. 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)

He has done the "Bolshevik" line with me as well at Talk:Marysville, Ohio. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

So what? If this happened months ago, it's not an issue now. Nobody's shown any evidence that he continues to make disruptive edits or personal attacks. What's more, as far as I can tell, he's never been banned. Nyttend (talk) 01:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Months? Try hours. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Nyttend, are you kidding? The disruptive edits continue to this day as SarekOfVulcan pointed out in just one example, and that's not even taking into account his absolutely shameful treatment of anyone who takes exception to said edits! I can only assume you haven't looked at his user contributions, otherwise you'd very quickly see all the evidence one could ask for. But I ask again anyway, are you saying that the older offences should be completely ignored even in spite of their recent continuation? This seems pretty open and shut to me, and in response to something you said in your prior message, I'm not asking for him to be blocked (for a third time), I'm just asking that something be done to straighten the guy and his attitude out. Whether that involves an admin going to his talk page and having a frank discussion with him, or him being blocked for a time for perpetrating more of the same that he was blocked for in the past... I couldn't care less, I just want him dealt with so that he ceases to be a disruptive presence. KaySL (talk) 06:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Edits to Bisexuality, Bisexual community

Adding a new section so I can use bullet points. This isn't something that happened months ago, it's something that happened the moment KaySL posted it. Wiki Historian N OH (talk · contribs) has a long history of vandalism and edit wars, and in the information I'll add below, I suspect there's a sockpuppet account involved. The user began an edit war with unverified material that seemed to introduce bias on the Bisexuality and Bisexual community articles, and I politely asked about it on their talk page and was called a disparaging name. Here's a history of the edits that bring this issue here:

• In the first edit (diff), Wiki Historian N OH changed the commonly-accepted bisexual pride flag to one that included a pi symbol, which is used by a subset of the bisexual community that believes in polyamory (multiple partners). Furthermore, the user removed text describing the bisexual pride flag and added text: "A common symbol of the bisexual community is the pi polyamory flag ... Other polyamory flags include..." First, this change introduced bias and had the effect of communicating that most people who identify as bisexual are polygamists. This is an unsubstantiated opinion and not a verifiable fact. This change would have had less of an impact had the flag been added to existing material, but it removed what had already been accepted as fact — in fact, it removed two commonly accepted symbols and replaced them with polyamory symbols.

• KaySL reverted the edits (diff), suggesting that the symbols be added to LGBT Symbols, likely because the only reason Wiki Historian N OH changed the flags and symbols was biased.

• Wiki Historian N OH then edited the page again (diff), replacing the common and recognizable flag with the polyamory flag, this time stating that it's common in Europe. Wiki Historian N OH added a reference to a magazine article, then added back information about the original flag, adding in political opinion ("It was designed for the purpose of political activism.") Additionally, there was material that was copied and pasted from another page that was solely about polyamory and not at all associated with the bisexual community.

• I reverted the edits (diff) and left a message on Wiki Historian N OH's talk page.

• Then, Wiki Historian N OH called me a "homosexual supremacist" in response (diff).

• Back at Bisexuality, Creative handle (talk · contribs) re-added some of the material (diff), identifying that it was good information. However, based on this user's creation date (the same day), contributions only to the Bisexual community, Polyamory, and Bisexuality pages, I strongly suspect this to be a sockpuppet account of Wiki Historian N OH's.

• This entire situation repeats over at the Bisexual community page, where Wiki Historian N OH adds a section for "Polyamory bisexuals" (diff), adding extreme statements. While many had references, it was one-sided and there were still references to opinions — "...a form of homosexual supremacism." (note that the article does not exist)

• KaySL reverted the edits (diff) as unverifiable and as original research. These were valid concerns.

• Wiki Historian N OH re-added the previous section, with an entire new section to the page (diff). Just look at the diff — anything that uses the socially unacceptable phrase "the gays" is clearly biased. And, of course, WP:OR.

• A few minor edits later, Wiki Historian N OH changed a reference from gay establishment to Homosexual agenda (diff), and added some weasel words (diff).

• KaySL reverted (diff)

• Suddenly Creative handle (talk · contribs) comes back and re-adds the entire section with the sole justification, "that's good info" (diff), then subsequently edits the page (diff, diff, diff). If nothing else, the timing and style of the edits confirm it's a sockpuppet account of Wiki Historian N OH's.

I assume good faith on everyone's parts up until this entire situation repeats and there's potential sockpuppetry involved. I'd appreciate someone stepping in, as these edits still appear on the referenced pages. To that end, edits can be discussed in the talk pages. Thanks! —Tony Webster (talk / contribs) 16:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty compelling evidence for Creative handle being a sock, and I've blocked and reverted accordingly. I'm not commenting at this time on whether WHNOH should be blocked as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:24, 14 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)

No, that's not correct. He was extremely abusive and insulting even before his first block. He has actually moderated his behavior slightly since the last block, presumably because he wants to be unblocked and has realized that pure vituperation isn't going to get him there. Whatever; I'm fine with him being unblocked, as long as someone (ideally the unblocking admin) is going to take some responsibility to be responsive to further abuses by Freakshownerd after his unblock. Because there will be further abuses. MastCell ^Talk 05:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll take your word for that then Mastcell as I have not dug through his contributions and you were on the receiving end of some of the comments and I saw some of his later rudeness. Off2riorob (talk) 05:39, 13 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 [33] 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)
• Now that arbcom has stepped away, I support an unblock with a clear understanding that uncivil behavior will result in a re-block. I'd be willing to be part of a mentoring group, but I don't have time to be the sole mentor and don't have time to be any kind of mentor for a few days (work is crazy until Thursday or so). Hobit (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)*****
  • • • • I can't speak knowledgeably in regard to the sockpuppetry allegations. As there seems some doubt as to their validity, I would support unblocking FSN, but only with a clear understanding that his recent behavior now has him on short notice for civility and edit-warring. Earlier, in suggesting to FSN that he take a break for a few days (a very polite posting that he rather predictably deleted) I made the following comparison: "In many ways, it's become the case of the fellow pulled over (perhaps wrongly) for speeding. When out of frustration he punches the policeman and wanders into traffic yelling at the top of his lungs the actual speed at which he was traveling soon becomes beside the point. Even were one to cede to your attestation of innocence regarding sockpuppetry and ignore the hugely problematic style of your editing style, one would still be confronted with the way you treat others when engaged in a dispute. This matters here, particularly because collaborative processes such as WP will invariably contain disputes. How we deal with them ultimately determines the success of consensus-based writing." In other words, I don't much cotton to the argument some seem to be making that, "Well, of course he got mean-spirited if he were wrongly accused and left to dangle in the wind by ArbCom." If he's learned to be civil and work toward consensus from this (perhaps unjust) block, we should welcome him back. At the first sign of this troubling behavior, however, he should be banned. ThtrWrtr (talk) 01:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
          • • I can't see any genuine doubt here. Read the SPI there is significant overlap in subjects/articles edited and behaviour shown, especially very quickly and knowledgeably entering CoM's wheelhouse not that long after joining wikipedia. Just because the IPs don't match doesn't mean it isn't a sockpuppet. He's been around enough to use a VPN or some other means to try and get around that.--Crossmr (talk) 02:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The similarities between Com's postings and Fsn's are so remarkable that the only way I can not see them as the same is to imagine someone perpetrating a massive hoax to set CoM up. Not bloody likely, but not much less likely than a fresh avatar of CoM popping up at random.

Anyone considering mentoring Fsn would be well advised to spend an hour reviewing Fsn's history of talk page contributions and guessing how amenable Fsn would be to even the kindest gentlest critical advice. PhGustaf (talk) 03:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Whoopdeeda (talk · contribs) is some interesting addendum to this discussion. --Jayron32 02:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

  This is all the more obvious now. interesting contrib history..--Crossmr (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I've had interactions with FSN on several pages, and like MastCell found him to be aggressive, uncivil, unpleasant and combative. There is indication Freakshownerd has ever considered whether his edits or policy interpretations could be even potentially incorrect, and my attempts to engage him in a discussion of specific edits/pages, my comments are normally either removed, or I get a stock answer that I don't understand blp. For those interested in the topics and specifics, it is things like the amount of text to give to the views of AIDS denialists Peter Duesberg and Kary Mullis (minimal per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE); to include information about poppers being dangerous drugs that can cause AIDS (they don't, but they've been correlated with an increased risk due to their association with risky sexual practices); that William Dembski's intelligent design ideas have serious scientific merit (they don't, extremely well sourced with the scientific consensus being ID is retooled creationism). All of these points have good quality, university press or peer-reviewed sources behind them, and in all cases represent the scientific consensus on the topic. I've discussed these topics at length, and have repeatedly been met with angry, unhelpful replies: User talk:Freakshownerd#vandalism and fanatics, User talk:Freakshownerd#Kary Mullis, User talk:Freakshownerd#Reverted edits to Poppers, User talk:Freakshownerd#Comments 2

Despite this, I would actually support an unblock - provided there were civility and edit warring restrictions. I don't know if FSN is COM and if so, should be blocked as a sock. I do know that the current block as a sock is dubious but almost certainly due to the civility concerns is turning into a de facto community ban. If FSN has learned from this, an unblock for socking is appropriate and a problematic editor could be redeemed. If not, then FSN will probably be re-blocked for civility - and quickly. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 07:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if he weren't CoM (and I'm not remotely convinced that he isn't given the AN/I stuff he's done) in a very short time he's acquired a very extensive block log, and doesn't remotely seem to be a net positive on the project.--Crossmr (talk) 10:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I think that the SPI is compelling and as such FSN should remained blocked. However as it is not without doubts I would not extend CoM's block. Codf1977 (talk) 11:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm deeply involved with the sockpuppet identification, but nonetheless, here's my view: i) the behavioural evidence that FSN is CoM is overwhelming. Put the entire case together (it came out a bit in drips, after the initial batch based on which the SPI was closed - see arbcom page) and I don't think there's much room for doubt - were it not for the checkuser evidence to the contrary. How you weigh that against the behavioural is a matter of judgement, but I think it far more likely to be successful CU evasion than someone who ticks all those boxes of continuity of obscure interests combined with behavioural [that is, tone and attitude etc] evidence. And surely no-one who's looked at the evidence believes FSN to be a fresh account; to my knowledge FSN has never owned up to what previous accounts he's had if he is not CoM. ii) nonetheless, the doubts raised by ArbCom create a prickly issue, and it leaves an unfortunate limbo being unaddressed so long (and seemingly not for a while yet). So I suggest the options are: a) wait for Arbcom to decide. Not a great option as they've already indicated they would be focussed on whether the sockpuppet identification is strong enough to extend CoM's ban, without necessarily saying whether it's strong enough to justify continued block. b) re-open the SPI, and ensure those issues are as fully aired as they can be. Probably won't change anyone's mind, but it might possibly clarify community view, since SPI was closed quickly and further evidence emerged later. c) start a ban discussion based on available evidence for FSN (including the evidence of FSN's own socking). This doesn't seem entirely fair because we wouldn't be at this point (quite yet) without the sock issue; but on the other hand, it could be argued that just brought a closer focus on FSN's behaviour, which can well enough be judged on the merits. d) unblock, and see if FSN can become a good member of the community, and start a ban discussion specifically for FSN if and when it proves necessary. This seems likely to postpone the inevitable; it is quite clear that the FSN account was started with a particular view of "abusive admins", and as hard as it was for FSN to deal with criticism before this episode - I find it really hard to imagine FSN could get past this and become more constructive than he was before! In sum, there's no great option, but in view of the evidence that FSN is a sockpuppet of somebody, it is hard to countenance option D. So I would suggest we consider B or C. (FSN could change the equation somewhat by coming clean on who he was before, but that seems unlikely.) Rd232 ^talk 15:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Plus, if you block someone for being a behavioural sock (i.e. someone whose editing is essentially indistinguishable in tenor/problems from an already blocked editor), you've blocked the first person for problematic behaviour. Why would the second person be permitted to keep behaving in a way that was problematic? If we can't distinguish FSN from COM based on hostility, incivility, edit warring and general tone - why does FSN get to keep editing while COM is blocked? The only reason I can see is to ensure fair warning so they can change their behaviour. In this case, fair warning has been given repeatedly and the closest thing we have to a "behaviour change" is for FSN to say they will avoid the "problematic" pages. It's not the pages that are the problem, if the editing habits remain the same then any page that is the source of a dispute will end up being a "problematic" page. This is essentially a restatement of Rd232's point (c). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm convinced that it is indeed CoM and even if I'm wrong the editor in question warrants an indef block for his disruptive, uncivil and other behavior so therefore I too support the imposted block.TMCk (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• For those that may not find the evidence at SPI compelling, note that there is a lot more evidence included by User:Bigtimepeace at the WP:RFAR page. And I don't see that ArbCom has "stepped away" I think they are just busy with the whole climate change thing and this is on the back burner for now. Several arbs have commented on the matter but I am not aware of any official ruling or whatever that actually represents a decision by the committee. If there is a consensus here first I suppose that would trump any future decision from ArbCom and the RFAR would be closed with a pointer to this discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment moved from Freakshownerd's talk page NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 23:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC):

• Thank you for initiating a discussion. I am not a sock of anyone. I have pledged to avoid conflicts going forward. It's frustrating that my block log is cited since the first two blocks were mistakes acknowledged by the blocking admins. It also seems that some editors/admins are trying to muddy the waters by suggesting I've socked, for example with the Whoopdeedooda account (whose supportive comment here was removed from this page). I have not socked and welcome an investigation into those allegations. I have a fixed IP address and I am not a sock of anyone. I seek only to get my editing privledges back so I can contribute in good faith. There has been a long series of false allegations made against me, but at this point I'd just like to be able to make uncontroversial contributions in areas free from intense dispute. Despite the many attacks against me (many of them totally false), the overwhelming majority of my edits have been constructive improvements to the encyclopedia that are entirely consistent with policy. I would like a chance to demonstrate that I can avoid any problems going forward, even though there hasn't been much of a recognition that other editors and admins contributed to the problems I've encountered. Freakshownerd (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • This is the CoM-to-a-T behavior that you just cannot shake; no one else is responsible for your actions other than yourself. Just like last year, simple editorial disagreement balloons into massive arguments. Admins and/or 3rd parties that intervene and do not agree with your position become "part of the problem", in your eyes. Once the blocks and similar sanctions begin to tumble down, the aggression gets worse. Every admin that opines against you or declines an unblock gets savaged along with the rest.
  • Another telling clue that I realized recently is your interactions with myself. We crossed paths at DRV over record label prods several months back, I still had your talk page on watch from commenting there, so a few months later when I noticed some worsening relations between you and WLU, I offered advice on dispute resolution, which you removed without comment 1 minute later. Obviously anyone can remove any comment they wish from their own talk page, but that is pretty drastic to do to someone with who you presumably have had only brief past contact with. It is something you;d do to someone who you are rather familiar with and have a history with Tarc (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• If we cannot keep him blocked as a sock (which I still think he is, but let's assume for the time being that the evidence is insufficient), perhaps we could block him as an impostor? He certainly does a heck of a good job at it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
• I think we have a consensus forming that FSN's exhausted community patience for now. The sockpuppetry issue is unclosed and unlikely to be closed with indisputable proof or disproof, but his behavior by itself has created a lot of exhausted patience. I think this is a "consensus not to unblock" situation for the time being. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:26, 14 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. [34] and [35] and [36], 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 [37] [38]. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've invited people in a neutral way. I have not asked them to vote one way or the other. I found that the featured article British Empire article had a Eurocentric view. I made some changes over the last few days to fix that [39][40][41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]. Some of the contents were offensive - liker terming Indians in India "natives", reversing sequences to emphasize European aspects only. I hope you are not mad because those changes were reversed by me. I also hope that you are not mad because I have a different POV. Let the admins look at diffs/history/logs and decide for themselves. Zuggernaut (talk) 00:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

btw, who is the admim looking into this matter?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cool! Make sure that you include that Zuggernaut, just above, made the comment about informing editors because they were Irish[48]. And you are probably no longer "the most neural person in the debate" (see below). Happy shopping :> Doc9871 (talk) 08:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

This debate is going nowhere!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another point

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

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

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

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

• Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner  Not done Invited in a neutral manner per this diff [49]
• Posting messages to groups of users selected on the basis of their known opinions – for example, sending notifications only to those who supported a particular viewpoint in a previous discussion, or who state on their user page (e.g. through a userbox or user category) that they hold a particular opinion ("votestacking")[2][50] Not done (per foot note) None of my invitations have been disruptive. In fact I've not made a single disruptive edit since my first post of July 17, 2010
• Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages) Not done Never sent out an e-mail to anyone
• Posting messages to an excessively large number of individual users, or to users who have asked not to receive such messages[3] Not done I've posted messages to ZERO individual users, only three projects
• Posting messages to users or locations with no particular connection with the topic of discussion ("talk page spamming") Not done No talk page spamming
• Soliciting support other than by posting messages, such as custom signatures that automatically append some promotional message to every signed post Not done No customizations to my signature.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are mis-representing my response. Please check the foot note for point #2 (See here [51]) It talks about disruption. There were two posts I made to the Irish projects - only one of those is relevant to this ANI against me. You are quoting the other one which relates to British Empire not India. This ANI is about India and the inclusion of content about the 37 million deaths. Zuggernaut (talk) 09:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Britishwatcher - Here's how I see the situation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OR

Step 3: I disagree with the guideline.

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

Step 4:Move on to editing articles.

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

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

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

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

Edit warring on Cryptozoology articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• There are four Bigfoot articles? The mind boggles. Similar problems at Cryptozoology. Over at Flat Earth I find this [52]. He indeed has problems with NPOV (see his edits on topics dealing with evolution as well), but also with WP:V and WP:OR. See my edit here [53] where he had written "His contention that Ancient Egyptian chronologies need to be revised is shared by the British historian, Peter James" in an article on a creationist archaeologist, referencing the claim to a book by Peter James. However, James had not made the claim, David Kyrle Down had (I know his brother off-wiki and get their e-publication, just as an aside) and I had to edit the claim to make it clear that it was Down making the comparison, which isn't quite as impressive. :-) It would matter less if he hadn't been lecturing another editor recently claiming that another editor didn't understand what he called our core policy, WP:V (I did point out that we have 3 core policies which shouldn't be considered in isolation). He suggested the editor create a new article, Criticism of Bigfoot. And his recent request for mediation -- I was gobsmacked by that. Dougweller (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• • Maybe, maybe not. Afterall, Bigfoot may have all these articles but Nessie has Twilight. :-D --*Kat* (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

What happened to Tisane?

Contact AC directly.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Tisane (talk · contribs) seems to have been banned for being a reincarnation of Sarsaparilla (talk · contribs), but that account stopped editing way back in early 2008. There don't seem to be any problematic edits from Tisane here. He is the site owner of Libertapedia, uses the same username there. As we can see, he doesn't make a secret of his real life identity. So, we're dealing with a high profile person who is unlikely to cause trouble here. Count Iblis (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC) It's an ARbCom block, so its likely that ArbCom is privy to information that the rest of us are not. If you want additional info, you should contact Roger Davies or another ArbCom member directly. --Jayron32 02:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Ironically, the only information lacking that prevented one from connecting the dots is the information just supplied by Count Iblis. Uncle G (talk) 05:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC) I just saw "Sarsaparilla" and "unlikely to cause trouble here" in the same paragraph. Count Iblis, do your research. I'm not going to waste everyone's time and reading effort relating the entire sorry tale yet again. It's consumed much of the archives of this very noticeboard already. 1 hoax article with falsified sources, an article pointing to a joke telephone answering service, all of the voting systems messing around, "delegable proxies", and umpteen sockpuppets is not "unlikely to cause trouble here". Uncle G (talk) 05:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Please also note that we have the practice of "letting sleeping blocks lie" (not re-opening issues of old blocks) unless the affected user requests an unblock. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Point of information, to augment Uncle G's comments above: there have been legions of Sarsaparilla socks around since 2008, several of which were blocked for disruption before they were recognised to be socks. Very likely to cause trouble (though in my opinion not intentionally), and a review of the contributions of the Tisane account will show this. Skomorokh 15:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks for pointing out the problems with Sarsaparilla. I still think, however, that Tisane could be rehabilitated. He should, of course, promise to play by the rules we have here. When I wrote that he is unlikely to cause problems now, I was thinking that whatever happened previously, happend quite some time ago and Tisane's account being linked quite firmly to his real life identity will put additional pressure on him to behave himself here. It's a bit like Jimbo on one day deciding to edit anonymously at some other Wiki and not always playing by the rules they have there (because he thinks the rules there are stupid or whatever). Then the disruption that this causes is in the eyes of the beholder. If you are involved there, you'll likely perceive a lot of disruption, while to Jimbo it may seem to be not a big deal (to him it's just another stupid website). Then Jimbo's account gets blocked. If Jimbo were to return there a few years later, but now with an account that can be linked to his real life identity of Jimbo Wales, then I think that should change the calculation regarding possible future disruption. Count Iblis (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Ordinarily I'd be sympathetic to this line of argument, but in this case, there are good reasons to believe that "rehabilitation" is an unlikely prospect. These reasons are somewhat personal to the editor (which I imagine is why ArbCom decided to involve itself) and it would be uncharitable to list them here, but if you follow the links in the original post they should become rather clear. Skomorokh 16:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC) I doubt Tisane is a threat to *Wiki* anymore. Tisane has showed (at least to me) that is a trustworthy person. He/she even works on the MediaWiki development! --Diego Grez (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC) You're hardly an authority on who is trustworthy -- your own trustworthiness is still being determined. I notice you've started taking an interest in various items here: take my advice: edit the encyclopedia and avoid Wikipedia space. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Count Iblis is simply trolling in this thread, as he is here and here. Regarding the last link, someone who cares might want to ask him why he is posting other people's private communications in his user space, even assuming he has permission from the parties to do so, which looks questionable giving the wording of his preamble. All this trolling seems to be a result of a months-long campaign by Iblis to support and participate in maximum disruption by those sanctioned in the Speed of Light arbitration and associated dramafests. Tim Shuba (talk) 01:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC) When you logged on here, you forgot to switch from WP:ABF to WP:AGF mode. Discussions about the issues you raise do not belong here. The tone in which you raise them is also unacceptable, i.m.o. Count Iblis (talk) 03:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC) On the contrary Count. It's a long standing principle that if you raise something here, you risk your own conduct getting examined. WP:BOOMERANG and all that. Posting emails onto wikipedia is a copyvio unless you have the express permission of the party who sent the email. As you continue to advertise the email as 'confidential, I do not believe you have such permission. I have therefore removed the copyvio and will ask for it to be revdeleted.Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC) (moved my comment to a more recent discussion below: #Counti Iblis posting email - breaching confidentiality/copyright) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Obviously, if I reported someone here because of a dispute I'm involved in, my conduct would also have to be examined. That's only natural. However, in this case, I have no stake in the case I'm rasing. I happened to stumble on the Libertapedia site a few days ago, learned a bit about the site owner and noted that he's also been active on Wikipedia, used to be a prolific editor, getting a barnstar for creating an article by a well known Admin here, just before being blocked. So, he seemed to be a good content contributor who i.m.o. could continue to conribute here. Count Iblis (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Your conduct warrants examination in this case because – as I note below – you have a history of ill-judged (and probably counterproductive) advocacy on behalf of users. If it hadn't been for your deliberately drawing attention to Tisane's identity at the start of this thread (and again in the post immediately above), I doubt that most editors here would be aware of Tisane's real-life problems. Your continued posts suggest that you're failing to take on board any of the input other editors have provided to you regarding Tisane/Sarsaparilla/etc.'s history of disruptive behavior, or regarding how we handle long-standing blocks/appeals. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC) I fail to see anything counterproductive in discussing these matters. I raised the issue and I gave one reply based on the fact that sock case was two years old. I then decided to let others discuss further. As things stand now, all I've had to say has been said and I will read what others are saying. So, you saying that "I'm failing to take on board any of the input other editors have provided to you regarding Tisane" is just nonsense, as you can't read my mind. Also it is irrelevant, because whatever happens to Tisane is not up to me. I merely raised that issue here. Count Iblis (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Counti Iblis posting email - breaching confidentiality/copyright

As raised in the section above by Tim Shuba [54]. On User:Count Iblis/WikiLeaks, Iblis posted some or all of an email sent by Jimbo to Brews Ohare. Even though the content is not particularly contentious, the principle with emails has always been that content can only be posted on wikipedia with the permission of the sender. As Iblis proclaims the email to be confidential, I doubt he has the permission of the sender.

I have removed the text [55] which I suppose technically ought to be revdeleted. Offenders have been blocked for this action. Count Iblis should have a slapped wrist at least (it's the principle of the thing rather than a massive BLP violation in this case). Anyone care to administer the WP:TROUT?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disruptive editing by User:ScienceApologist

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

---

Checkuser attention is needed here. The IP claims not to have an account, but I think there is a substantial chance this could be a banned editor, or somebody involved in the conflict playing games. Jehochman ^Talk 14:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC) - Has been reviewed--no technical evidence of a connection to any other editor. Jehochman ^Talk 08:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that Jerochman is markedly supportive of ScienceApologist and has created a baseless accusation out of thin air simply to disrupt and derail this discussion. False accusations without even the hint of evidece are patently bullshit. As is this transparent attempt to bait me in order to gain a "Quick Kill". Wikipedia has standards, perhaps someday they'll be applied without POV.99.141.241.60 (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist is engaging in exceptionally heavy-handed and disruptive behavior in a Climate 1RR article, an article currently up for GA review. He has needlessly deleted and merged it's contents. This behavior is simply Drama for Drama's sake, it's disruptive and not in keeping with community standards regarding 1RR articles, or even GA articles. His Wikilawyering to argue for his rights simply underscores his understanding of community standards and the effect wholesale deletion would have. Here are the particulars:

• With this edit 07:26 13 September 2010 ScienceApologist merged the blog Watts Up With That? to Anthony Watts.
• This was undone by Cla68 here
• Any actions on the article were clearly likely to be contentious because it was under 1RR restriction, as labelled on the talkpage by this edit
• The article is also currently GA nominated here and a peer review request had been made.
• ScienceApologist has recently been heavily involved in disputing the GA reviews and delisting of global warming skeptic articles (e.g. Good article reassessment/The Real Global Warming Disaster/1) and also this can be seen in discussions at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. This is to the point where SA's actions have been questioned on several occassions. This is also at the point where it is not concievable that SA did not fully realise the disruption such a merge could cause.

This activity is precisely the kind of "spanner in the gears" disruption that cannot, and should not, be tolerated as Wikipedia tries to move itself beyond the senseless "partisanship at all costs damn the neutrality" so long in command in various sub-precincts of the Encyclopedia.99.141.241.60 (talk) 13:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I am involved with regards to ScienceApologist and I collected most of these diffs myself but I believe the background shows that ScienceApologist fully knew the disruption of his redirecting a GA nominated article which was also under sanctions and he has been acting as a negative combative influence in this highly sensitive area of wikipedia for some weeks now. Polargeo (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Further, I have no idea who this IP is and I was not going to report this issue to ANI myself although I don't think this is the wrong venue. Polargeo (talk) 14:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo is bang on here. CC has quite enough problems without people throwing wooden shoes at it. Collect (talk) 14:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Said the blackest kettle to the pots. By the way, the wikistalk analysis for you with regards to me is very interesting Collect. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, SA made an edit, was reverted, and the GA process continued. Is there anything more to this, aside from making assumptions about SA's motives? GA nomination is not a magical way to prevent editors from making changes or even redirecting an article. Presumably Cla68, a very experienced editor, would have filed a report if there were a problem. Jehochman ^Talk 14:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Being bold isn't disruption, it's normal editing. --TS 14:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yar. A single bold edit such as this shouldn't be considered disruption. It's inline with the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Rehevkor ✉ 14:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If we're done shooting the messenger, being bold isn't disruptive, unless it's being bold in an utterly ridiculous situation. A GA nominated article, currently under peer review isn't the place to run around being bold with a redirect. that's pure disruption and nothing else.--Crossmr (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, why isn't there an exception in the WP:BOLD guideline? Try to put one in if you think that's obvious. I do not think the majority of Wikipedians will agree with you. Additionally, the peer review can continue on the article to which we redirect the content and the GA could also be applied to the merged article if the reviewer wanted. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

it already exists. It's a guideline, not a policy. Also, perhaps you should give it another read. ...but please be careful Though the boldness of contributors like you is one of Wikipedia's greatest assets, it is important that contributors take care of the common good and not edit recklessly. and "Be bold, be bold, and everywhere be bold," but "Be not too bold." This was reckless and too bold.--Crossmr (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting opinion, but it's one that lacks substance as it cannot be measured. If what made it "reckless and too bold" was that the article was siting with a moribund Good Article Nomination and a doubly-commented peer review then go ahead and see if people at WT:BOLD agree that this is the definition of reckless. See if you can insert it into the guideline. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You asked for the exception, I provided it. I believe one of your previous sanctions had something to do with wikilawyering didn't it? The article was not in a position to be redirected without discussion. It is quite obvious that it was going to be opposed. Making actions you know that will be opposed isn't bold, it's disruptive.--Crossmr (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill. Cla68 reverted the edit, and did not complain about it further, and SA appears not to have repeated the disputed edit. The main cause of disruption is the editor who is escalating a conflict needlessly. I believe the IP is taking advantage of our "no account needed" policy to engage in mischief. Please don't use exagerations like "shooting the messenger". Jehochman ^Talk 15:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Reporting a disruptive editor isn't mischief. Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill after all right? The main cause of the disruption was SA walking into an article in good shape and redirecting it.--Crossmr (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the talkpage? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• WP:OWB#37 is in effect here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• it's not remotely in effect here.--Crossmr (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Because you say so? Wow, you don't so much opine as shoot from the hip. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• And it is because you say so? Last I checked you're not an administrator. #37 specifically refers to someone crying admin abuse.--Crossmr (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

We need to be as tolerant as is theoretically possible, which may mean going beyond what looks reasonable. Of course, attempting to redirect a GA aticle is not going to get applause from all those editors who are fans of Anthony Watts. It may be a bit of stretch to WP:AGF here, but I suggest we still do this. Then, if SA were to ignore the feedaback he gets and persist in his efforts to get the article redirected against consensus, we reach the point where you cannot WP:AGF anymore, no matter how hard you try. We aren't there yet.

I used the same logic here. Count Iblis (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

One ill advised edit is not a big problem. It becomes a problem if the user persists in spite of negative feedback. Jehochman ^Talk 15:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the block log this is hardly his first ill-advised edit.--Crossmr (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

SA was last blocked 18 months ago. We issue blocks in hopes that an editor will reform. SA seems to have done so, and we should encourage and support that. Jehochman ^Talk 15:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The block expired 15 months ago, not 18, it was a 3 month block. It was followed by at least 6 months of sanctions, which means he's only 9 months clear of any sanctions, but I've hardly dug that far into it to see if there were any others applied after that. This behaviour hardly shows a change.--Crossmr (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I see what's going on here. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What's going on here is that you were blatantly disruptive, which shows that you haven't really changed your behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the merge, but... Contradictory as it may sound I think ScienceApologist was wrong in policy terms to perform it, but in intent was not out of line with the spirit of wikipedia. Articles such as these are in danger of getting frozen because of talk page conflict. Occasionally, a bold edit will help break out of the torpor of wikilawyering. This was just the wrong way of doing it. I recommend no action, save asking ScienceApologist to be more careful in future.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Which policy? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

IP 99.141.241.60

I believe this account is acting disruptively. It has been deleting my comments from this page. [56][57] Should it do so again, would another administrator please block it. Thank you.

Additionally, I am concerned that this may be a sock of User:Scibaby, or another editor heavily involved in CC conflicts. Jehochman ^Talk 14:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I am in a content dispute with the nominating editor in the section above. Note that prior to Jehochman's defense of ScienceApologist he spent a number of edits on preventing the airing of my concerns, here in the venue intended for such things. His finding of me "Guilty" of some unspecified crime, evidence of which does not exist, rests solely upon his taking exception with my filing above.

(Comment added out of sequence) Note: Jehochman's first example is the addition of comments by another user unrelated here. It involve's neither of us and are civil additions. Shoddy work, it appears to be a simple error on Jehochman's part as I don't believe he'd have produced such a pathetic ref intentionally to artificially inflate his argument.99.141.241.60 (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out my error. Now fixed. Jehochman ^Talk 15:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Not acceptable behavior, and actually by definition, Disruptive Editing intended solely to win a dispute by removing an opposing voice in the matter. 99.141.241.60 (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Then why are you deleting my comments? Doesn't that count as "removing an opposing voice"? I am not defending SA either. The objective fact is that SA made an edit, was reverted, and then business carried on as usual. The bigger problem is your attempt to stoke a needless controversy. The CC conflict is very severe, and we are troubled by a prolific socker. I'd like some reassurance you are not him, because you appear to be acting disruptively. If you were peacefully editing content and doing a good job, I would not worry about you at all. Jehochman ^Talk 15:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments? You shut down the discussion entirely and unilaterally, collapsed the section, forbid comments and branded me a sock in bold red type. I removed your tags and re-opened the discussion which is ongoing above. The fact that the community, yourself included by virtue of your defense of ScienceApologists disruptive editing, finds it worth discussing is de facto evidence that your actions were wrong. Also interesting to note why you may be defending the other disruption, you apparently value and use the tool of disruptive editing yourself when it brings a means to an end you drive for.99.141.241.60 (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't have a conversation with somebody who is so vitriolic. I've been in email contact with another editor who has assembled evidence related to your account. We are going to hand that evidence over to a Checkuser for review. Jehochman ^Talk 15:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Star Chamber time? Any hints as to who is accusing me, or of what? As to vitriolic, look first at your own actions here in which you fly off the handle and make numerous false, open and unsubstantiated accusations. Now you go off to find the crane with which to lift your lynch line. Pot.Kettle.Black. 99.141.241.60 (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You've made your report, it's being discussed, why don't you take a walk for a couple hours and let some other editors weigh in and then add more if you have to at the time.--Crossmr (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You want us to assume good faith on an editor with a long history of disruptive edits and behaviour and yet you're tripping all over yourself to defend him and then can't even give an ip the tiniest amount of good faith. You might want to take a step back and give it all another read.--Crossmr (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

SA has made a successful return from some past problems. The IP is currently under sanctions for disruptive, single purpose editing on several articles. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive211#BLP.2C_SPAs.2C_a_proposal. Jehochman ^Talk 15:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sanctions which don't apply to this article. Sanctions that were made 6 months ago, and sanctions which don't include this IP. Anything else?--Crossmr (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The sanction specifically applies to the user, no matter what IP they hop to. We believe this is the same user. The topics are tangentially related. This is not ban evasion, no. I cite the ban as reasoning not to extend too much good faith. The IP is whipping up a mob, deleting my comments, then getting extremely combative in their remarks. (Thank you for asking them to chill for a while.) Let's take your advice and leave this for other editors to comment. If we comment too much, everybody will be driven off by the wall of text. Jehochman ^Talk 15:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Not so, but then you'd have to read the link - and it's sublinks(1) You can recreate another "ban the ip that's disagreeing with me" or you can discuss the issue. Frankly this type of spinning out of orbit disruption is the point. It's also highly effective. The question is whether the community still tolerates off-topic digressions and time-wasting as efficient use of time and community resources. I've presented my complaint above because I believe the community consensus is one that does not wish to tolerate disruption as a strategic debate tactic. I could be wrong, but the question and its airing in the above section was valid. 99.141.241.60 (talk) 15:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to end discussion

Can we find some common ground, IP 99? Would you agree with me that further discussion here and now is unlikely to be productive? There is an open arbitration case. Any concerns about a pattern of disruptive editing by SA, such as Polargeo's comments, merely need to be reduced to diffs and posted with a proposed finding to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision. Jehochman ^Talk 17:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree, this discussion isn't going anywhere as it seems to be mainly propagated by one or two discontented editors. As for me, I haven't seen anything egregious from SA—he certainly is "motivated" or at worst "aggressive" from what I have seen so far. Not seeing the disruption here to warrant this thread or any intervention. Just my two cents.   Thorncrag  18:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I notified ArbCom about the incident. Cla68 (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I would be shocked if they were unaware of it after 50 or so posts to WP:ANI. Jehochman ^Talk 00:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It has been said above, in various ways, that SA made an edit, it was reverted, and then business carried on as usual. Actually, that is not correct. SA redirected two pages (not one) (WUWT and Surfacestations)and then made multiple edits (about 23) to the combined page. To be clear, 3 pages under went major changes without any discussion. The two redirects were undone, but someone now has to undo all the other, related, changes SA made. (To be clear, this work still needs to be done! And with every one working under a 1RR restriction, no one has done it yet.) There was no doubt that this is disruptive. Q Science (talk) 02:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Is ScienceApologist forbidden from editing this article? Reyk _YO! 03:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No. Q Science (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Then what is the problem, exactly? The way people are talking it almost sounds as though ScienceApologist is restricted from editing the article, that his contributions to it are disruptive by definition, and that he needs to be reverted on sight. Reyk _YO! 07:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

In general, in the Climate Change area, editors are (I think) required to discuss before making major changes. Since this change merged 3 pages, I think that qualifies as major. In the past, any change of this magnitude would have instantly started an edit war. However, so many editors are currently banned that the rest of us would rather discuss. In this specific case, if anyone tries to revert SA's 23 or more edits, they will most likely violate the 1RR restriction and be permanently banned from wikipedia. That is why this is a big deal. We need an administrator to fix this mess or we get banned. (Yes, I think that qualifies as disruptive behavior.) Q Science (talk) 09:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

(od) Just a suggestion but this is all being discussed at the arbcom case at the PD talk page about CC. Can I suggest that this be closed with no actions and let the arbitrators deal with it? It seems from what I've been reading there that a lot more is coming out over there than there is here. For the record here, I am not involved in editing any articles at all in this area, just an observer who is making comments ocassionally. Thank you for listening, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Assumptions of bad faith and Battlefield mentality

Unresolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legal threat

See here. Sorry I'm not able to look into this further myself at the moment. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Although difficult to tell from the way they pursued it, their basic objection was that File:Martin_Munsch_Producer.jpg is a copyright violation, which appears to be true. It's up for speedy deletion at the moment, and per WP:DOLT, I'd suggest immediate deletion. In the meantime, because the IP managed to put their foot in it with the original edit, they haven't been advised as to how to legitimately request speedy deletions or how to contact OTRS. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's a link to an email copy on a copyvio sent to info-en-q@wikimedia. I've removed the link and image from the article, it's tagged on commons for speedy. Although inappropriate to place it on article space I think it passes the "what is not a legal threat" bit on our policy. Although, I won't dissent with an opposing call by another admin. —SpacemanSpiff 19:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

On a deeper look it looks like something weird on this one, the IP has been editing the article for two years, and isn't happy at being reverted or some such, and now this action. So my initial AGF might be misplaced and a block is appropriate. —SpacemanSpiff 19:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

SarekofVulcan beat me to it. —SpacemanSpiff 19:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

See 2010070910045921 for more info. I'm dealing with the ticket now. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't just block the IP, I made sure that someone had tagged the image for copyvio first. It's apparently taken care of now, so if anyone wants to override my NLT block, I won't be offended. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note - The IP actually added the image back in October of 2008[58], and has been talking about "cease and desist" and copyright violations since at least July[59][60][61]. It does seem to think highly of Marty Munsch[62]... Doc9871 (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

True, but it could have been an intern editing from the same IP. Could a commons admin check who uploaded the image please? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It was uploaded by commons:User:Carcassbait. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

IP seems to be related to the account SOcal9045 (talk · contribs), and is the subject according talk page. Rehevkor ✉ 21:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

SOcal9045 claims to be Marty Munsch[63], and the IP has been suspected of being MM in the past by at least one editor[64]... Doc9871 (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - There's also this image of the Punk Rock Records logo which is owned by Marty Munsch and received a C&D threat here. I removed the image from the article but it's still in commons. Having dealt with these articles for a while now I'm pretty sure that Mr. Munsch is the same person who uploaded both images and has been threatening the C&D orders. Both the Punk Rock Records and Marty Munsch articles appear to have originally been written by Mr. Munsch himself (or at least greatly expanded by him). It was after several of us cleaned up the Munsch article (read: stubbified) that the threats and vandalism began from MM. SQGibbon (talk) 00:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

One early "expander" of the MM article, this IP, perfectly matches the geolocate of the IP in this thread. No edit overlaps, as one IP began editing after the other ceased. SPI, maybe? Doc9871 (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Folks, there are tools out there that can detect edits from complete CIDR ranges; this is one of them. That being said, 68.193.213.0/24 has been blocked 1 month (AO, not a CU block) for continued legal threats. –MuZemike 04:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Also,  Confirmed:

• Myperfectcousin (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• SOcal9045 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Thisisengland clash (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hairballcloginsidecbs (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• PipepigCBS (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

–MuZemike 04:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Selena

I need help with the Selena article, I'm trying to protect it from losing featured status and another editor is adding information which I can't vertify or is false, and using unreliable sources. I broke 3rr already in the article, but some of the reverts was reverting false information so I should be safe. But I can't revert anymore. Can an adminstrator intervene. Thanks Secret ^account 22:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I tried to report this to WP:RFPP, but it was not letting me save it. Suggest full-protection on the page for a week or so, with warning given by some uninvolved admin about edit-warring to pages of users involved. -- Cirt (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like this is a content dispute. It'd be better if you took it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring instead of this noticeboard. The Utahraptor^{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 23:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yea I don't need a warning, as I know I was edit-warring trying to protect the article from being defeatured, some of the facts were as false as it could be, like 100 million Texans went to her funeral, and that she sold over 200 million albums, which only Celine Dion has ever done. She also added some information which I found in my book source but I can't trust Ajona sourcing for my life. Secret ^account 23:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I protected the article for a week. The edit history pretty clearly looked like a content dispute to me. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with this admin action by Amatulic (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

3RR does not apply to vandalism. Stating that 100 million Texans went to Selena's funeral is clearly vandalism. Along with some other edits by that user I would say Secret was correct in violating the wording of 3RR to keep the spirit of our policies regarding vandalism. If Cirt and Amatulic want to call that edit warring then obviously something is wrong with their interpretation of an edit war. Reverting vandalism 100 times in one day is a hero's work. Please dont just warn both parties in some weird PC ideology of being fair. Of course if I'm wrong and you think 100 million people from a state with a population less than that attending a funeral is a valid edit and point-of-view thereby making this an edit war and content dispute then I apologize. Otherwise I think several people owe Secret an apology.Camelbinky (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with a page protection as that would keep Ajona from editing the article. Ajona was deteriating the article and some of her mess is still there, but I need an adminstrator to fix any concerns on the article on its featured article review. That what caused the revert war in the first place, I tried to be nice but Ajona was adding content that fails WP:V and didn't made any sense like the 100 million Texans comment. I just couldn't trust him/her information. Secret ^account 00:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

100 million people live in Texas? That's a lot of village idiots :) –MuZemike 01:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Come on, just read the edits and use common sense before accusing somebody trying to fix vandalism of edit warring. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'll be willing to work with AJona as long as my book and my sources confirms Ajona edits, if it doesn't i'll just revert. There's still some unconfirmed Ajona edits in the article that my book references has nothing on it. Unprotect the page until the WP:FAR is over. Secret ^account 03:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Any one? I promise not to revert unless I find the information unvertifable Secret ^account 21:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Aorist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Help with slow-motion edit war

I may be completely wrong here, so I'll accept chastisement if I am. I put Colony High School (Alaska) on my watchlist when I removed a bunch of copyvio from it (to make sure that the kids who are the main editors of the article didn't just readd it). Since then, I've reverted several times the addition of the name of a minor—in the age sense—person identified as a student at the school. We don't have an article about the person, and although the fact that the person attends the school can easily be found in a web search, I don't think we should be in the business of divulging personal information about nonnotable underage students in this way. Could an admin take a look and either read me the riot act or, if I have a point, revdelete the relevant edits (and perhaps the copyvio stuff as well)? Whatever the result, I'd like to think that I'm not the only one watching the article. Deor (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment - According to WP:BIO, just because she is a politician's daughter does not mean she is notable. You're on the right track, but make sure when you revert something like that to use the warning templates found at WP:WARN. Using these might help deter the vandals and guide those who aren't too sure of the policy. Also, if you're certain that a copyvio is taking place, delete it. From the edits I've looked at, you've done a good job so far. Keep it up. Ishdarian|lol^wut 03:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that you seem to be doing the right thing. As for any possible admin actions, the details in the revisions in question are not particularly personal and could easily be found elsewhere, so revision deletion doesn't seem to be applicable. If the insertion of this material accelerates, then you could request temporary semi-protection, since the insertions seem to always come from IP addresses and non-confirmed accounts. But an edit once a week or so doesn't seem to justify that either, at the moment. --RL0919 (talk) 03:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for a few months (mainly due to the repeated copyvios). However, it needs a fair amount of work to knock it into something encyclopedic. For full disclosure, I intend to make some content edits with that aim in mind; I don't believe this crosses the bounds of WP:INVOLVED. EyeSerene^talk 12:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, EyeSerene. Deor (talk) 12:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your vigilance, Deor :) EyeSerene^talk 12:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and Harassment by History2007

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

Revert on Catholic Mariology: [65]

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

[66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76]

Reverts on Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic)

[77] [78] [79] [80]

They also followed me to WikiProject Catholicism

[81]

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

In addition, on the Catholic beliefs on the power of prayer talk page, History2007 moved my posts without my consent and fitted them into a section as if I was answering his questions. [82]. He has done this on Leo XIII's talk page as well, and he's also restated my posts in 'straw man' type arguments. There are also numerous uncivil posts on the Catholic beliefs talk page as well as spread over several other articles. I can get diffs if necessary. Any relief you can provide would be most appreciated. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 06:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, copyright emergency in lull. :) I suspect there are some misunderstandings here. For the two articles in question, User:History2007 was the immediate prior editor to User:Malke 2010: [83]; [84]. It is entirely reasonable that he would have been watching these articles. Too, a look at his Wikipedia talk space edits demonstrates that he didn't need to follow Malke 2010 to arrive at WikiProject Catholicism. They also are obviously using different definitions of "rmv", which per Wikipedia:Glossary#R entry typically means either "remove vandalism" or "remove." I suspect that is the basis for History2007's assertion that the articles were stable ([85]); Malke2010 seems to me to have meant it in the second sense ([86]). I suspect that they each are feeling significantly bruised at this point, History2007 because his work has been undone in a way that he felt implied it was done in bad faith and Malke 2010 because her work has been undone in a way she feels dismissive. I don't doubt they both feel harassed. I think these two need to come to some accord in the way they will work together and that History2007's suggestions below are sensible. Alternatively, I think they could benefit from mediation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Seeking WP:CALM

I thought about this issue and my suggestion is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Queen moves

I have undone some unilateral moves of Mary of Austria, Queen of Hungary, Maria of Austria, Holy Roman Empress, and Margaret of Bohemia, Queen of Hungary, and protected those pages from move-warring, even though I am partly involved in move discussions of European royalty (although not the ones I've moved and protected). Bringing it to attention here for transparency. DrKiernan (talk) 07:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

User with no registration date

Forgive the cross-posting, but would like to ask anyone with any info on this issue to take a look and respond here.  7  09:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio/disruptive uploads by User:ThatRockMetalGuy

This user have been caught uploading copyvio images before (see File:Hanoi Rocks 2007.jpg, File:Steve Perry Live 1979.jpg, File:Hanoi Rocks 1984.jpg, File:McCoy 2009.jpg, File:McCoy2008.jpg, etc), and I just caught the user again at File:Monroe2010.jpg, despite me and others leaving several warnings. The user completely ignores the WP:NFCC policy as well (see File:Mötley1989.jpg, File:Axl Rose Taiwan 2009.jpg, File:YngwieMalmsteen2010.jpg, File:Eddie van halen07.jpg, File:SnakeSabo.jpg, File:Duff2004.jpg, File:Jyrki69 2006.jpg, etc), constantly uploading replacable unfree images (even replacing free ones with obviously replacable unfree ones, and then edit warring over it claiming that only that image can capture that exact moment). The log history and talk page of the user should speak for itself. The user has been blocked for it before. Nymf _hideliho! 10:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I propose that the user is reblocked, and any upload by the user that isn't an album cover is vehemently deleted. Nymf _hideliho! 10:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Indefblocked since this isn't the first block. To return to editing, ThatRockMetalGuy will need to convincingly demonstrate that they fully comprehend why they've been blocked and how they intend to avoid causing the same problems in the future. EyeSerene^talk 11:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Scope instead for a selective ban on uploading? There does appear to be a WP:COMPETENCE issue, but not one of GF. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I tend to favour indefblocks as the default measure for repeat copyvio offenders, simply because they've clearly demonstrated that Wikipedia needs protecting from them and any sort of time-limited block would allow them to return without necessarily being any the wiser. Indefinite isn't permanent though, so if they were to accept something along the lines you've suggested as a condition of their return, that would work for me. EyeSerene^talk 14:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I would (of course) like to see them return immediately to full editing rights. However we do have to resolve the copyright problem and there seems (given past history) no chance of that, owing to a simple failure to grasp what went wrong before, or any indication that they'll be competent to avoid it in the future. An appropriate past apology and future agreement could achieve that in full right now, but they don't seem capable of making it. There thus seems to be a need for infinite protection from uploads (infinite and indefinite being seemingly the same thing for this case, on current evidence). As blocks always ought to be as restricted as are barely necessary, then I suggest we should go narrower here, rather than for (the seemingly unachievable) shorter duration. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I've proposed terms for an image ban on his talk page as follows:

• No image uploads, period, for an indefinite amount of time.
• Six months after his last copyright-related block expires or was lifted (so at the earliest, six months from today), he may appeal for a review of his ban at WP:AN provided he can demonstrate a full knowledge of WP:COPY and WP:NFC.
• He may request that images be uploaded on his behalf via WP:IFU; it seems to me this would give him practical experience in determining what is and isn't allowed copyright-wise.
• Any violation of these terms may lead to a block of up to two weeks, up to indefinite after the third violation.

If he accepts these terms, EyeSerene (as the blocking admin) agrees to them, and there is no significant objection, I intend to unblock him. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that I believe that there might be more to this than image violations. See this edit. Note the edit to the "Combination" header and then check the reference he listed. That was found from just from looking through 2-3 edits from the last couple of days. Nymf _hideliho! 16:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's me explaining another one, and here's the user admitting to stealing it, obviously oblivious to the fact that it is a copyright violation. Nymf _hideliho! 17:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I've seen this user before as another account, I swear (that or I've been blocking socks for too long). I remembered having to tell the same thing to another editor in an unblock request who wouldn't get it; the user also went to the unblock-en-l mailing list about the same thing. The person, judging by his writing ability, could not be any more than 12 years old. If anyone has an idea what I'm talking about, let me know; I think was back in either July or August IIRC. –MuZemike 17:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I've withdrawn my offer to unblock the user based on Nymf's findings. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for temporarily vanishing from the scene :) I can't speak to potential socking, but given Nymf's subsequent discoveries I concur with Hersfold's withdrawal of their offer. The tone of ThatRockMetalGuy posts indicates that it wasn't malice that prompted the copyvios, but I can only agree with JamesBWatson's analysis on ThatRockMetalGuy's talk page: claiming ignorance after 60-plus warnings and a previous block isn't the sign of an editor moving up the learning curve. EyeSerene^talk 18:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Per Nymf's additional notes on the text issues, simple indef block. This is a user who just doesn't get it re: copyright. They'll need to demonstrate that they do before going near either upload or text editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

99.90.197.244

Moved here from WP:AIV EyeSerene^talk 11:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• 99.90.197.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – not exactly vandalism, but this user seems to be asking for a WP:COMPETENCE block. Hans Adler 10:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Support from this list alone.   — Jeff G.  ツ 11:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

  What length of block would you support? My gut feeling is that this person probably shouldn't be editing here, but I thought it was a bit complex for AIV and wanted additional opinions. EyeSerene^talk 12:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

  They just replaced some copyvio (YouTube) that I'd told them was copyvio, with typical nonsense on my talk page. Seems to be a stable IP, 6 months? I was about to bring him here myself. Dougweller (talk) 12:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

  And again. I've hardblocked the IP for a month. Thanks all for your input :) EyeSerene^talk 12:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• I see that while I was writing the following comment the IP has been blocked for 1 month. However, having taken the trouble to write it I may as well post it.

I have made extensive studies of edits from this IP right back to its first edits in January 2010. The editing history is full of problems of many kinds. There is the editor's very poor level of competence at English. There is original "research", or rather original opinions which seem to be unbacked up by anything. There are bizarre edits that add text that does not appear to mean anything (and I am not referring here merely to incompetence at English: even where the English words and phrases are comprehensible it is sometimes impossible to tell what they are intended to refer to). There are additions of copyright-infringing material. There are minor changes to wording which make nonsense of previously clear sentences. There are postings of material of little relevance to the subject of the article, or the section in which it is inserted. There are deletions of text apparently based on misunderstandings of what the text means. There are (occasionally) remarks which appear to be intended to be offensive. These problems go back at least as far as April 2010, when the IP first started editing frequently (there are a few earlier edits from January 2010 on). Unfortunately it is clear that the editor is not competent to edit English Wikipedia (nor, I suspect, any Wikipedia, as the language problem is only a part of it). EyeSerene asks "What length of block would you support?" My feeling on that is that, since the editor has been editing in this problematic way for at least six months or so, a brief block might merely bring about a brief break, and the same pattern might return. I tend to think in such cases that to be effective such a block has to last for at least several months. The fact that the same type of problem editing has continued for a long time, with no evidence of anyone else editing from the same IP address, suggests that this is a static IP used only by one user. In this case the risk of collateral damage to other users by a prolonged block is minimal.

Here are a few diffs to illustrate the problems: strange addition of a word not having any clear relevance in the context, largely incomprehensible, and also containing material apparently intended to be offensive, not really relevant (not about book burning), and a copyvio of http://ko-kr.facebook.com/pages/Lt-Col-Anthony-Shaffer/137955399561386, incomprehensible, rather incomprehensible, and poor grasp of English, not supported by the sourced cited, Original research and English, Incomprehensible, destroys the meaning of the sentence, includes a copyvio of http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/09/science/la-sci-hominid9-2010apr09, etc etc. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Their edits are certainly very odd. My only real reason for pause was whether or not this individual would benefit from something like mentoring, but given your advice and those comments others have left, I think that probably isn't a useful option. I have absolutely no objection to you tweaking my block (or, if you're involved in some way, to doing it myself). However, if the block length is increased I might be tempted to make it a soft block instead - every hardblock I've ever issued has caused unintended collateral damage and justifiable complaints :) EyeSerene^talk 13:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Although my inclination was to block for longer, now that you have blocked for a month I suggest leaving it at that for now. We can always consider a longer block if and when the problem returns, and meanwhile we can hope it won't. There is not really a single correct thing to do in a situation like this: it's just a question of making a judgement. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

True :) I guess we'll wait and see how things pan out then. EyeSerene^talk 13:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Humanbyrace (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – Blocked one week by Admistrator EyeSerene for using Wikipedia as a discussion forum and making personal attacks against other editors.

confused editor, keeps posting rants and dumping enormous reams of text to my talkpage,[87] I tried to be patient, but user is now beginning to call me "an aryanist racist" and "playin racism and fascism!?" and similar things, and I do not think that I am expected to weather this sort of thing, so can please somebody ask him to tone it down or else. --dab (𒁳) 12:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• - Humanbyrace notified. Off2riorob (talk) 12:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I would say that type of name calling is without doubt an unwarranted personal attack. Off2riorob (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Because there's a history of WP:FORUM/WP:SOAP and a previous block, with the personal attacks I've given the editor a week off. Should further blocks be necessary I have no doubt they will be much longer. EyeSerene^talk 13:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Beat me to it - good block. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

VolkovBot overly eager to remove interwiki links

VolkovBot is an interwiki update bot run by ru:User:Volkov in a reckless manner. It should be blocked unless and until its operator is willing to run it in a more responsible manner.

See its recent contributions - removing some or all interwikis, some to articles that are redirects to the right topic, others that appear to be completely correct. Particularly egregious was the removal of almost all interwiki links on Input. Apparently it is being run in -auto and -force mode, despite the general feeling that this is a bad idea.

Volkov has been contacted in the past about this and merely created a note arguing that it's up to other bots or humans to repair the links it breaks.

I am sure there are some good edits in there. However, it is not worth the cost. One incorrect action means someone has to figure out how to restore links on any number of languages and somehow figure out what is annoying it lest it do it again - and that assumes a person with the skill to do so is watching.

The bot is currently making about one edit every two minutes on the English Wikipedia (and of course more elsewhere). GreenReaper (talk) 03:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked the bot for now. It's an indefinite block but other admins are welcome to unblock as soon as this problem is resolved. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I would also note that VolkovBot's bot flag was speedily approved three years ago with no discussion and with obvious errors in the submission ("X edits per TIME", no mention of period). It also says it is to be run in "automatic supervised" mode. The 24-hour operation suggests otherwise. GreenReaper (talk) 03:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The BAG request, which was approved.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted some of the bot's edits, including the one above. ~NerdyScienceDude 03:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• That's right, the bot is run in auto-force mode but ONLY when it processes interwiki conflicts. In some cases multiple redirects or article status mismatch (normal article vs. disambig, like here) cause complex interwiki conflicts and the bot is unable to resolve them in a single run. In this case it tries to restore valid direct links later based on it's removal log. Interwiki conflicts are in fact multiple and have accumulated over the years. I feel like fixing errors is in no way reckless, and bot's edits are in fact analysed and manually fixed whenever possible (e.g. like here or here). Simply reverting bot's edits is not a good idea since all problematic links are restored and the conflict remains preventing the bots from keeping valid interwiki links up to date. My or any other bot will then restore valid links. You may see e.g. this page history where the links were reverted and restored back by different bots until they were manually fixed. I suggest unblocking the bot. It may seem to be overly eager - that's because it's processing the list of conflicts from the English wikipedia (NB: large page!) right now. Please let the bot do it's job and be a bit more patient and bot-friendly ;-) --Volkov ^(?!) 05:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

What seems strange to me is that your bot was approved with zero discussion, and that request wasn't even filed correctly(as noted above).— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I cannot be sure why there was no discussion. It was 3.5 years ago. The bot was already active and approved on several other wikis at that time. Maybe this was the reason for the prompt approval at en.wiki. --Volkov ^(?!) 06:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Just like disputes at other wikis have no place here, neither should bots, just because they are in use on other wikis, be approved without any discussion.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

That was not my fault ;-) --Volkov ^(?!) 07:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Not really commenting on this specific case, just giving some background. Generally interwiki bots using the pywikipedia framework are speedily approved, since they are all essentially the same, and it's been proven to be uncontroversial. Normally they aren't approved quite as quickly as this bot, since there are still come things which each individual bot needs to sort out (e.g. the force/auto mode, editing templates, exclusion compliance). These days I doubt you'll find a request approved after 30 minutes. Also, with interwiki bots, the bots edits on other wikis are considered, in fact, bots with global flags are automatically approved to do interwiki here (don't think this bot has a global flag, but just an example of the bot's global edits having an effect on if it's approved here) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it has. --Volkov ^(?!) 08:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Why are there multiple bots doing this interwiki stuff instead of just one? This is not "the encyclopedia that every bot can edit". When they said "everyone" they weren't thinking of bots. 75.57.241.73 (talk) 09:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Because one bot wouldn't be able to handle the load. –xeno^talk 15:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Processing the conflict list with a bot is missing the point. The articles were placed on that list because pywikipedia couldn't figure out how to handle them without potentially removing useful information. That indicates human interaction is required. A more appropriate solution would be to use a bot to drop a note on the talk page of the articles in question informing them that there may be an issue. Bear in mind that many things marked as "conflicts" may make perfect sense, since articles are arranged differently in different languages (see below). GreenReaper (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see the problem. VolkovBot removed article interwikies from a disambiguation page. That's right because such cross links cause interwikiconflicts. Articles should link to articles and disambigs to disambigs. The block of the bot doesn't solve the problem in any way because all pywikipedia bots work that way. Please unblock. --Obersachse (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Just because everyone has access to the same axe does not justify giving it to an idiot (pywikipedia) and letting them run around unsupervised 24 hours a day in a busy street. :-)

You have a particular idea of how the wiki should be setup. But in the real world, this is not the case. Two related topics that have a disambiguation page in English may be covered in a single article on another language. And even if there is a correct non-disambiguation article, it is better from the reader's perspective to link to the disambiguation page than not to link to anything at all, which is what happens when the bot removes the link.

There is also the matter of removing links from "detail" articles in one languages pointing to a more general article that combines two or more topics in a different language; for example, from en:Galactic Civilizations II: Dread Lords to de:Galactic Civilizations#Galactic Civilizations 2: Dread Lords (which naturally links back to en:Galactic Civilizations). These links are correct from a reader perspective because that is where the topic is covered, and removing them because Pywikipedia cannot understand the situation is not an acceptable solution. GreenReaper (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

What is better for the reader? Less, but right interwikilinks or more links, but partial wrong? I prefer less but absolutely right. You may have another point of view. --Obersachse (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm when you are running interwiki conflicts is the exact time you should definitely not be running -auto with -force. Because that is when it will make mistakes. -DJSasso (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

-force with -noredirect. This is the only way to clean up multiple interwiki conflicts and restore valid direct links afterwards. The very same situation was discussed in detail today on the German Wikipedia and also on my talk page. Keeping the bot blocked, or locking the pages, or making edit wars with bots is not helpful at all. Problems remain for ages and what is affected first is the quality of Wikipedia. --Volkov ^(?!) 20:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No that isn't the only way, what you do once you have a list of conflicts is you fix them by hand. That is the whole point of the list, its that pywikipedia can't fix them so you need to do it manually. -DJSasso (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess you're kidding. Or simply do not imagine how serious the situation is. Just have a look at these lists. There are literally hundreds of thousands pages with interwiki conflicts. Fixing them all manually is not feasible, it will take ages. Some conflicts may be resolved by bots, other more complicated cases in fact do require human intervention. But blocking the bot doesn't help resolve this problem at all. --Volkov ^(?!) 16:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No I fully realize, the problem is as has been shown, numerous "fixes" your bot has made have been incorrect, so of those hundreds of thousands, how many thousand are actually correct, and with human intervention we would see that. So quite simply put your bot is creating more issues as it goes. Blocking your bot is helping as it is keeping it from creating more issues. -DJSasso (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't speculate, just give examples of "incorrect" fixes and "more issues created". I have many examples of resolved conflicts. German Wikipedia had the same concerns and they have blocked the bot for a while yesterday but after analyzing real examples of bot's fixing the conflicts, they lifted the block. And you prefer keeping the bot blocked and having things disorganized for ever? No human would be able to resolve all these conflicts manually. Just try to fix a couple yourself, and you'll probably be convinced. --Volkov ^(?!) 17:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Many mistakes are commited by humans and the bots automatically follow them, there are many bots that do that, everything has a sollution, I write to the bot owner and he repairs his damages, that's enough, for me, Volkov is a very efficient bot, he has done multiple connections, I don't know a bot as good as him--Jaguarlaser (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I have moved this thread here back from the archives as the issue is still unresolved.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 13, 2010; 13:27 (UTC)

I don't understand what Ezhiki is asking for at this point (some diffs of bad edits by the bot would be helpful) but I also don't understand why there are so many interwiki bots. There should preferably be just ONE, developed collaboratively through some kind of wikiproject on metawiki. At the very least, the interwiki bot developers should coordinate their efforts, have a common bug tracker, and generally have enough communications to not to step on each other. 67.119.12.216 (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, one bot wouldn't be able to handle the load and would represent a single point of failure. –xeno^talk 19:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Dfhuiwzvbsdizvb

The user has redirected their user page to their talk page and in turn redirected that to their user page creating a continuous loop. I discovered this whilst trying to add a warning for removing a AfD template from Chicagoblok. Am I allowed to unlink the pages as this situation is clearly not ideal? Due to the redirects I am unable to inform the user that they are being discussed here unless the pages are unlinked. --Wintonian (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I've undone the redirect as it is disruptive, warned, and notified of this thread. Rodhullandemu 16:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, I thought it might be but wanted to be sure. --Wintonian (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

IP marked as blocked, but not blocked

Hi. The page Special:Contributions/195.195.245.20 says at the top that the IP is blocked, however the 6month block expired a few weeks ago. I'm not sure if something needs to be manually done to remove the message at the top there, or if it should have automagically disappeared? - (Sorry if this is in the wrong noticeboard. Please move freely, no note is needed, I will follow via editsummaries.) -- Quiddity (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It's probably covered by a newer rangeblock. As far as I know, whenever you see that pink banner on a user's contribs page, they're blocked, even if you can't see the block. —Soap— 17:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the blocked banner. Syrthiss (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just did a "cacheless" reload, and it's gone, although I doubt that was the problem. Anyway, for future, try WP:VPT for this kind of thing. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Mazca unblocked at 17:49. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't think a rangeblock was the case - the user has clearly edited earlier today. I just "unblocked" using the normal form and it resulted in a block log entry and removed the message. I can't see a clear reason for what was going on here - if my mystery unblock has cocked anything up, do feel free to fix it. ~ mazca ^talk 17:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I ran across the same thing with an IP that I blocked in January for a month. It was still showing blocked, but was clearing vandalizing long since. I chalked it up as a fluke, because another admin blocked the IP before I could and I didn't see them bring it up anywhere. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I've seen this bug several times, and it confused me to no end each time. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!)} 20:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from Oclupak

Oclupak has been warned multiple times not to use article talk pages as places to make comments better suited for forum. This editing goes far back in his history, such as [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95]. The editor also ignores calls that his sources be reliable, and continues to push youtube links: [96], [97], [98], [99]. His personal attacks on editors he claims 'owns' the pages he edits is also a problem: [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105]. Lastly, he has latched onto MONGO as someone to harass about his previous employment, even though the discussion was resolved. [106].

This user has a long history of pushing POV, writing rants and forum like posts, pushing youtube links where they clearly don't belong and are not welcome, and refusing to work with the project, instead of against it. I request action to remedy this problem. I am aware I can take this up on the 9/11 admin board, but since this editor dabbles in fields outside of 9/11 with the same furor, I felt this would be the better place to debate it. The links I have posted only go back to last year. There are FAR more examples of blatant disregard for the pillars of Wikipedia, but I don't have the time to research them all. --Tarage (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the "9/11 admin board" (I can't find it), since the major issues with this editor appear to revolve around that subject and it would be pertinent to see what remit that board may have? I think there is a case for bringing the matter here, providing ANI will not be stepping on anyone elses' toes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

[107] This is the general board for arbitration. --Tarage (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Update on Factorx1983: Sockpuppet MRAgentOrange

Hi, all. The blocked user Factorx1983 is now sockpuppeting as MRAgentOrange. He has been harassing my company, Amble Resorts, and our island in Panama, Isla Palenque for months. Thankfully, intervention by the courts and the police have diminished his harassment in the flesh, so he is now harassing us on this forum. Please watch out for him, especially on Panama-related pages. Thank you, Flimoncelli (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the disruption has been done at the Spanish Wikipedia so far from the sockpuppet, the User:MRAgentOrange account does not exist at this Wikipedia. Palenque Island has seen no activity since the original account was blocked, and Index of Panama-related articles has a list too long to scour through for one editor's mischief but I suppose it's worth noting. -- Atama頭 21:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I assume that Flimoncelli was referring to this? Perhaps if he brings matters here in future, he might remember to provide links to relevant pages? And if there is evidence of sockpuppetry, WP:SPI is the place to take it. David Biddulph (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I totally missed that. Thanks for pointing it out. You're right that I had to hunt around a little to figure out what was going on, links would be helpful next time. I'd like to add that if MRAgentOrange is a sockpuppet, their request was reasonable and was fulfilled. -- Atama頭 00:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

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

This user closed a requested page move before any consensus had formed, and after he himself participated in the page move. My understanding of Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions is that users who participate in page move discussions are not supposed to close them. When I brought the matter on his talkpage he responded with threats and incivility [108]. Any help or advice would be appreciated. Athenean (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BravesFan2006

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

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

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

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

User:Indopug has twice now removed my comments on the Alternative Music Project talk page [109] [110], One I won't even get into it but Big Star is very relevant to alternative music and considered by most to be an alternative band. Two I'm not sure what gives him the right to police project talk pages editing them to fit his world view. 70.119.247.185 (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Article Alert Bot Bug/Requests Issue

OK, I am taking over the article alert bot, I got it approved by the WP:BAG. I am coding it and running it, and I have a user who is complaining to me because I want to change the way we reported bugs and feature requests for the bot. They were just on a Wikipedia page, I have them in a ticket system, the user is constantly arguing with me about keeping them on the page. I want them in the ticket system so I can manage them easily and keep track of what I have to do. The user will not let it go, since I am coding the bot and I am the one who has to do the fixed and features I should be able to determine how I want to handle that. So I would like some help. If maybe you could go to my talkpage and in the bottom section drop a note allowing me to do it thie ticket way for the sake of my organization. I have tried to give reasons as to why I am doing this and I am getting irritated. I am also in the verge of an edit war and loosing my cool. I have asked an admin and they referred me to WP:ANI. [111][112] Joe Gazz84^user•_talk•^contribs•_{Editor Review} 22:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

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

High profile user talk page fully protected

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