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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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)

Difficulty with User:Hushpuckena

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment - Maybe a {{uw-mos2}} warning on his talk page would start to get his attention: but maybe not, apparently. His listed "copyedits" are really just not correct - so just undo them with an appropriate edit summary. Edits like this[1], on the other hand, are entirely appropriate and constructive: maybe a "trouting" for the bad edits? If he simply won't discuss it (or even acknowledge attempts at discussion), and continues in this editing vein, it's pretty obvious what will eventually happen, now isn't it? Yup... Doc9871 (talk) 06:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
• Bad news, Omnedon. I think that Hushpuckena has the grammar right, and you are in error here, in all of the edits you mention. That's not reason to ignore you, but I can understand the mindset of someone who corrects a fairly obvious grammatical error only to have it undone, and who concludes that Wikipedia can just suffer from the errors being reintroduced, since xe's done xyr part in fixing them once. I can also understand the mindset of someone who decides that it's not xyr responsibility to teach everyone else on a wiki grammar, or who has no desire to spend xyr time arguing about grammar with pseudonymous people on a wiki. I don't particularly agree with it (such editorial discussions being part and parcel of collaborative writing), but I can understand it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment - I was unaware of the deep intricacies of the plural/singular argument before I whacked Hushpuckena upside the head. I thought his changes were wrong grammatically... whatever. He's still quite actively editing[2], and apparently ignoring this thread (and the real basis for it) completely, despite being "informed" of it. A good editor who simply refuses to communicate with others in the community. Why can't he respond? There must be some classic previous cases like this. What to do? Doc9871 (talk) 08:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We've been trying to get Hushpuckena talking. My first request did not say "I'm right, you're wrong", but politely registered a concern and requested discussion. This request has been ignored. That's disruptive, and that's the reason for this ANI discussion. In any case, the information in question is not delivered via a template; it's text embedded in each article. The text was auto-generated by a bot years ago. Omnedon (talk) 01:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

<lose indents for clarity>I understand that. I'd like for him to talk, as well. I even teased him about his own (inadvertent mis-)use of grammar. Hushpuckena shouldn't be blocked for trying to deal with what he saw as a grammar problem, and I hope that "we" don't decide to just block him, and then move on after he's shut up. People who can only find ways to criticize somebody's grammar are irritating, and they ought to be shown their own hypocrisy. But, nevertheless, grammatical error should be corrected, and those who are passing on the worth of someone ought to recognize the value of grammarians here. He is communicating, by acting. I'm not approving his communication method, but then again, I suspect that most of us have let this particular grammar error slide (and thereby let the encyclopedia slip in its potential quality. His communication method may not be conventional, but there you have it (grammar is very "rule bound" after all). I would hope that there would be no need to block until and unless and only after he for some reason persists in misbehavior after the community actually makes some effort to address the problem that he saw; a problem that he tried to address, in his own peculiar way. Yes, the problem is content based and doesn't belong here, but it's real, it was generated automatically and thus is pervasive, and it really ought to be addressed sensibly. Without arguing grammar. Let's just rephrase so that we don't have to bend our brains around the ridiculously subtle grammatical points being debated here. Steveozone (talk) 05:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, one more point. The grammar might be wrong, it might be right, but c'mon now, how "disruptive" can it be for Hush to pervasively insert his arguably ungrammatical phrasing to replace another arguably ungrammatical phrasing (which itself was pervasively created in an "automatic" manner)? Is this debate over blocking him really any less disruptive than finding a way to avoid the grammatical ambiguity? Steveozone (talk) 06:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Ok, how about if I just say it:

Hey, Hushpuckena! I know you're watching this. Say, my friend, how about you just replace the ugly phrasing that you found all over the place with "Gooberville includes a total area of <w acres>. The total area of land is <x acres> and the total area of water is <x acres>". I think that probably deals with the ugly phrasing that you've found, no?

How hard is that, folks? Really? Steveozone (talk) 06:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC).

Well, as I've mentioned, I've been working to correct these very issues, which involves many thousands of articles. I'm sure that Hushpuckena also fully intended to make improvements; and some of his edits to these geography sections did indeed accomplish an improvement, as did his copyedits to other unrelated articles. I ran across his edits in the course of my own work. It's just this one issue that is problematic; and once again -- the problem is not so much the grammar, which normally users could work out among themselves, but the simple fact that discussion was impossible -- Hushpuckena wouldn't respond. Period. Omnedon (talk) 13:35, 13 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 [3], [[4], [5], [6].

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, [7] 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 [8]. 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: [9] 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: [10]. 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)

Elazar Shach talk page

Intractable.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
IZAK (talk · contribs) has been changing a header on the talk page of Elazar Shach from "Smurf Shach" to "Bluish photo of Rabbi Shach". See [11], [12], and [13]. His explanation, as stated in the first edit summary is "fix sub-heading for better language that is not offensive". I have reverted this because 1. one should not change header titles lightly, since they might be linked 2. as the original post stated clearly, no offense or disrespect was intended 3. this is plain censoring out of misplaced reverence to a person whose picture just came out lousy. In addition he continues his irrational prejudice against Chabad editors mentioning a "Chabad POV hatred of this rabbi". I remind you of the ArbCom case in which he also made accusations about Chabad editors which were not found to be true by ArbCom. When will the community force this user to abide by the "assume good faith" rule? Not to mention that the original poster is not, to the best of my knowledge, affiliated with Chabad. Debresser (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC) What, you want editors to be allowed to mock a person on the talk page of their article, and are upset that people object? Do you not have anything useful to do? Fences&Windows 17:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC) I've collapsed that thread, discussing a bad photo on an external page has nothing to do with improving the article. Fences&Windows 17:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC) You seem to miss the point, that he does look like a smurf, and that the original editor stated specifically, that no offense was intended. Debresser (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC) How absurd. You insist on labeling and defending calling a WP:NOTABLE person a "smurf" and then you have the chutzpah to say "no offense was intended"? Just how illogical is that? Just how dumb do you think people are? Or why should I or anyone be surprised, when I recently left you a friendly message/reminder on your talk page and you retorted "Go fuck your righteous self" (pardon me for quoting you verbatim) with absolutely no justification. Mind you, I did not take offense, even though you were asked by others to tone down (User talk:Debresser#AFD notification for Significance of numbers in Judaism) because by now that is just what one can expect from you, using and supporting of offensive words (e.g. User talk:Debresser#Personal attacks on Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson) when you "defend" your favorite topics you give yourself lots of leeway, even if it means crossing all lines of decency, that are then "defended" with illogical and irrational and unreasonable lame rationalizations and WP:LAWYERing in the hope of getting your way. You need to stop this type of behavior ASAP. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Problem was started by in this diff when User:Insert coins needlessly demeaned the subject of the article by opening a section with a demeaning title that had no intention of anything to do with improving the article. User:IZAK was totaslly correct in his alteration of the header and additional reverts back to the demeaning header by User:Debresser were also bad judgments as was the opening of this thread. Off2riorob (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC) User:IZAK was totally correct in his actions. Off2riorob (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC) No, he wasn't. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC) No, he wasn't. The rabbi (who is deceased, so there is no BLP issue) appears in a poorly-toned photo that the initial editor thought made him look like a Smurf. Evidently y'all don't know what Smurfs are. They're blue-toned cartoon characters. Tinkering with the editors comments was out of line, and ignores the real issue - namely, that that website that's supposedly honoring him has some really lousy photos (not just that one). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC) No one mentioned BLP, it is possible to demean a dead person also. Off2riorob (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Funny. There seems to be more than one opinion as to how this issue was resolved. :) Debresser (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC) All that's left is to find what section to post this in at WP:LAME. If we can't make a lighthearted joke about a photograph that came out wrong, I don't want to be here. The comment referenced the photograph, nobody is suggesting that the rabbi is actually a smurf, he's clearly far too large to live in a hollowed out mushroom. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Precisely. The initial comment was about the photo, and some nanny with no clue about the subject decided to "censor" the section title. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC) My point precisely. Although I feel User:IZAK was acting according to his renowned anti-Chabad agenda. Again. I really think Wikipedia would do best to ban this user from all Jewish -related articles. Debresser (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC) There is nothing wrong with a light-hearted comment per se, but there were some special circumstances here: The whole thing was rather gratuitous. The photo in question (very obviously the fifth from bottom here) doesn't just give the rabbi a blue face; it simply has no red tones at all. That's blatantly evident, and the question really wasn't about the rabbi's blue face but about the quality of a site that uses such a photo when it also has so many others that are obviously superior. (I am not sure it's a very good point, since there may well be a specific significance to this specific photo, which his adherents may know shows him on some special occasion.) The light-hearted comment was in the title, where it was misleading. The entire situation looks like a calculated provocation. When it became apparent that IZAK found this light-hearted joke in bad taste and redacted it, Debresser edit-warred for its inclusion on the talk page. We must have a free climate, where we can make harmless jokes without fear of retribution. That doesn't mean that deliberate provocations of an opponent are acceptable, or that ostensibly harmless jokes are immune from being redacted per WP:TALK#Others' comments/Section headings. Hans Adler 19:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC) I posted an "anchor" so that both "Smurf Shach" and "Blue photo of Rabbi Shach" should still work from editors' history lists. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC) - This thread is a perfect reflection of everything that is awful at the wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Second rio. It's just battlefield bullshit that has zero to do with article content (as opposed to the battlefield bullshit that at least does have something to do with article content). Debresser requesting a ban from all jewish topics for a long-standing opponent of his for the crime of "complaining someone compared a rabbi to a smurf on a talk page" is an interesting new tactic though.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) This doesn't appear to require administrator attention, and I firmly agree that this would be a candidate for WP:LAMEST. In any case, the thread doesn't seem particularly offensive, but surely the best response to "I find the title offensive" is, "I'm sorry you feel that way, I'll change it to something just as descriptive which doesn't make an unnecessary joke"? I don't see the need to edit war over the title and then take it to WP:ANI because of a disagreement over a poor joke. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)Not everything, surely. It does hit most of the checklist, though. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC) The fact it engendered a dispute illustrates why it shouldn't have been messed with in the first place. And since it was, the editor should have placed the "anchor" template so as not to mess up links to the original title. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Your pointy anchoring of the objected to smurf title is one the low points of this awful thread. Off2riorob (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Actually, what I anchored was the revised or "softened" version, as the "Smurf" thing is currently the section title. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Only now I've had to anchor the other title too, since someone de-titled it. Oy! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Please, could we get over it? I'm sorry that I displayed my bad taste by using a title that made me smile while thinking of what I was writing about: a photo that I found deeply disconcerting. Because, honestly, I thought and still think he may have been photographed on his death-bed (the expression of the face, the position of the head, the blue skin). Or maybe the rabbi was made up for Purim and this is an incidental photo taken by on of his grandchildren? Anyway, I wanted to know if there was something special with this shocking (to me) picture. The title was meant to cheer myself up, and rise some smiles, nothing more sinister. --Insert coins (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC) "No offense intended", but it would probably be better if people use their own web sites to cheer themselves up and "raise some smiles", and use this one to help write an encyclopedia, especially when it involves calling someone a "smurf" because some outside web site has a photo of them with a blue face. If I may comment as a non-administrator passerby, it is clear that IZAK acted properly and there is no point to this thread. Neutron (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Is this thread a prank? My understanding is that Debresser is a Chabad rabbi, and today is Saturday. It is beyond belief that he would be editing on the Jewish sabbath. Vasio (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC) This thread is both the most ridiculous, vaguely disturbing and yet the funniest thing on ANI in a long while. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC) I've been waiting for someone to say that it's the Smurfs that were dissed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC) I'm pretty sure that BLP doesn't apply to blue-toned cartoon characters, but the way this thread is going ... Black Kite (t) (c) 20:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC) I didn't realize BLP applied to dead people, either, but I'm learning all kinds of new things today. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Yeshiva Smurf! No, Torah Smurf! Oh, pretend you weren't thinking it. 195.200.82.161 (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC) "Say the secret word and divide a hundred razzbuckniks. It's a common word, something you hear every day." (Today's secret word is "proletariat".) Perhaps I need to make the point more plain. Debresser would not under any circumstances be editing today because it is a religious prohibition for him. It appears that someone has hacked his account and used it for this prank. Vasio (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC) No need to make a non-existing point. Shabbath is over here in Israel. Debresser (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC) ברכת שנה טובה 195.200.82.161 (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Can we please get back to the real point at hand- are Smurfs (Smurves?) Jewish or not?! They wear head-coverings in-doors, someone is always trying to kill them (and he does seem like he might be German or at least with that robe maybe a member of the Spanish Inquisition!), Brainy Smurf- come on he's a typical stereotype!, and Papa Smurf (perhaps a rabbi?) has a good Hasidic beard going on and very wise, his sayings could be coming straight from the Talmud!Camelbinky (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC) That post is highly offensive to Gargamel and I demand that you be publicly horsewhipped for posting it. (and , everyone knows, the smurfs are godless communists and Papa Smurf represents Karl Marx) Beeblebrox (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Am I now in BLP-trouble with my offensive comment against Gargamel? Karl Marx was in fact Jewish... so we still can say Smurf's might be Jewish by heritage... Someone needs to write a book title- Smurfs and the Jewish-Communist Conspiracy... then I'm sure someone on Wikipedia will then use it as a source to show that Smurfs really are Jews and Communists.Camelbinky (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Karl Marx, although assumed to be atheistic, observed the Sabbath regularly. Every Saturday, he would point to a calendar and say, "There it is." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC) The late Rabbi Shach obviously doesn't stand accused of structuring, orchestrating a denial-of-service attack, deceiving online gamers or supplying pseudoephedrine to illicit methamphetamine manufacturers (thanks to Breaking Bad for bringing that one to my attention), so I'm struggling to understand why the term would be deemed offensive in this context. At the same time, I'm unable to ascertain why maintaining that wording remotely warranted an edit war, let alone a thread here. Honestly, this is one of the most inexplicable conflicts that I've encountered at Wikipedia (and indeed seems quite "lame"). —David Levy 04:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC) When I think of "Smurfs" I think of these little blue cartoon characters, and that's presumably what the OP thought of when he saw that photo (one of several poorly-reproduced photos in that link). The younger kids might know the term "Smurfs" only from those derivations you posted, and thus didn't get the joke. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Here is a Smurf, wearing an official Smurf yarmulke. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Yes, exactly, and with all that I still don't know what moment this photo is meant to represent or on what occasion it was taken. I should have chosen a boring title, that's for sure. --Insert coins (talk) 07:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC) I can understand a lack of familiarity with the internationally famous characters, but unless the word "smurf" is primarily a slur in some culture(s), I cannot understand why anyone would assume that its use on that page was intended as an insult. But I also fail to understand why there was any need to restore that description after it was replaced. What difference does it make? —David Levy 07:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Colloidal silver - There, I said it. [14] --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC) According to Hebrew Wikipedia, the Smurfs were accused of perpetuating antisemitic stereotypes.[15]. No source is provided for this accusation. RolandR (talk) 10:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Translated. The (Smurf) series has been accused of being anti-Semitic . According to this charge, Gergmal greedy, which deals with magic, with the even the big black hair, in fact reflects the anti-Semitic stereotype of the Jew who tries to take control of the Smurfs, the Gentiles seemingly harmless to anyone. Azraelא And, Ahatahthol English version is called Azrael (Azrael). Another fact that turning the evil smurf kind, with black hair color change in the "Indian" blond "Aryan." . In addition, all Smurfs wear on their heads caps, a cap similar to the Ku Klux Klan. There are a lot of web hits to this ant semite regard to Smurfs. Funny isn't it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC) What's funny (NOT) is that if people go looking for insults, they are certain to find them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Well, that's the problem with Google translations. The word "af" can indeed mean "even"; but in this case, it meant "nose". By the way, my Israeli wife has just reminded me that the (very short) Yitzhak Shamir was frequently referred to by opponents and satirists as "the smurf". RolandR (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Response by IZAK Hello to everyone and thanks for your input. The sub-text of this thread is troubling and its evolution is fascinating to watch: Insertion of irrelevant, silly material that will obviously be offensive, the usual tactic of blatant trolling covering it up with pseudo-self-righteous justifications incorrectly citing WP policies that are not to the point. Then when a justifiable and rational objection is made, and an attempt to correct it is made, something that's done thousands of times each day on WP, with no display of respect and no room for discussion is made, a mischievous and frivolous case is brought to ANI no less, falsely claiming "censorship" and wasting everybody's time. Then false charges are made against a user, in this case me, that have nothing to do with what is happening here. I never have been "anti-anything" on WP, unfortunately Debresser imagines himself to "embody" Chabad on WP and "therefore" falsely assumes that any edit that he dislikes is somehow "anti-Chabad" which is obvious hokum. It has been a busy time on the Jewish calendar, and I have urged Debresser to seek input from experienced Judaic editors first, some being admins, at WP:TALKJUDAISM before running to ANI any time he wants to get his way, and which I will now do seeing that he hasn't, so that we can get some more serious input how to resolve this matter. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC) It may be worth noting that IZAK has just canvassed eight editors plus Wikiproject Judaism to come and weigh in on this discussion.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Which is not OK. On the other hand, this entire section is in incredibly bad taste. I have already commented about this above, and am not going to repeat myself. Hans Adler 23:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Well, if we need, per Debresser, to ban IZAK from all Jewish-related articles for altering the heading on the talkpage, we must surely at least defenestrate him for his terrible terrible canvassing. Please don't be ridiculous on ANI, Debresser, it doesn't even have the virtue of originality. Agree wholeheartedly with Fences and Windows: Do you not have anything useful to do? Bishonen | talk 01:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC). The Talk page is for improving the article. Therefore a reference to a photograph could be "Photo with blue cast" or something like that. I don't think censorship is a factor because this isn't in reference to article space. Bus stop (talk) 01:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Elen: Please be accurate and do not exaggerate. As I had asked him, which I repeated above as well that I would do, the logical and rational thing was for Debresser to go to WP:TALKJUDAISM in the first place and get some input from long-time mature and seasoned editors who work with this kind of material, and get their response first if name-calling a rabbi or anyone WP:NOTABLE for that matter a "smurf" is acceptable writing for a serious encyclopedia, instead of running to ANI on the drop of a hat to waste their time with false accusations. I have openly asked five (not "eight" editors) to ask for their input, four of those I asked for input are also admins, so there is nothing untoward either as I am keeping this in the open, as well as informing WP:JUDAISM which should have been done first. This topic effects many more editors who would normally take offense at Dbresser's antics should they become aware of it, so contacting five fellow-editors is nothing out of the usual in editing and responding to any article or topic. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC) There is nothing defensible in this edit. The choice of naming in that section title is fanciful and gratuitous. I think that when the objection was raised to that section title it should have been changed. From the point of view of using the Talk page to work on the article, there is nothing necessary in the wording originally chosen for the section title. Bus stop (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Honestly, "build a bridge and get over it", as the saying goes. It was a humorous take on a very unfortunately blue-tinged photograph. WP:BLP doesn't apply to a dead person, no one was harmed by this, and it was a very lame issue to edit war over. Tarc (talk) 03:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Hi Bus Stop: I joined in the objections you raise, and when I did Dbresser became "alarmed" and threatened to run to ANI as he has done. I am the one who is being criticized by User:Dbresser for removing the offensive description "smurf" for a photo of the rabbi, so I agree with your view. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 04:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Hi Tarc: I agree with you. The problem is that Dbresser has decided to declare any place he dislikes my comments a WP:BATTLEGROUND while he fails to acknowledge his own support of controversy, that he needs to stop. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 04:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC) I believe this edit serves the purpose of reining in extraneous implications. In so doing I think it brings the Talk page back to its intended purpose. The photo in question has a blue cast to it, so the section of the Talk page was renamed to a reasonable wording, "Bluish photo of Rabbi Shach." In my opinion all that transpired from that point on was totally uncalled for. Bus stop (talk) 04:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Agreed 100% IZAK (talk) 06:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Let's wrap this up, shall we? This entire thread is obscene. I highly suggest we wrap this up. Below are a few remedies I highly suggest the community come to consensus on: Rename the talk page thread something that is appropriate Dbresser try to first discuss these issues with the editor in question before coming to ANI or attempt at mediation, either through the Mediation Committee or MedCab IZAK needs to stop canvassing, as he has done in the past. Quite frankly he might be in need of a short-term block for this. IZAK and Dbresser shall have no interaction, broadly construed, at all. They are fire to one another. Please feel free to add, subtract or ignore my suggestions. Basket of Puppies 04:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Well I agree with hardly any of those positions. This thread is a bit obscene, and I closed it soon after it was opened, this was reverted by User:Baseballbugs , and other users have enjoyed the hilarity, as for the original thread, Baseballbugs has added the insults as anchors so thats all right then, so this is safely linked in case anyone searches for the insults they will be linked straight to the discussion.'''Smurf Shach''' {{anchor|Smurf Shach}} {{anchor|Blue photo of Rabbi Shach}} - Off2riorob (talk) 04:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Like I said, please feel free to add, subtract to or ignore my suggestions. I don't really care, other than closing this obscene thread. Basket of Puppies 04:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Oy caramba! This thread is obscene in the same way Showgirls is pornographic. I've changed the thread heading, no offense to Buggs, because "Jewish censorship" or whatever it was is a little too weird and might upset some delicate people who are more inclined to find offense than humor. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC) If anyone thinks this discussion is "obscene", they must have lived a sheltered life. As for re-opening it, it was clear it was not over yet, and Rob was out of line trying to force his opinion on the matter. Regarding the anchors, that was to avoid breaking links. Anytime you change a talk page section name, you should anchor the previous one. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Hi Basket: You forget to mention that you cite a case from over 5 years ago where the situation was entirely different it involved about 25 editors, and the issue there being an editor who was bordering on antisemitism and who has subsequently thankfully withdrawn and retired from WP. I should be thanked for my prescient warnings. So I am well aware of what goes and what does not. Now, however, placing a note at a WP Project and asking 5 editors for input does not qualify as either "canvassing" or "spamming" of which I am well aware. To repeat, I openly asked 5 seasoned editors, 4 of whom are admins, who are familiar with this field for their input, that is within reason and violates nothing. Debresser's note here has drawn more attention from more editors in any case just because of its absurdity and comicality alone. That is neither "spam" nor "canvassing" unless you can come up with a definitive amount of messages that are allowed when trying to bring together any group of editors. Furthermore, how would anyone enforce an artificial "separation" when either Debresser or myself cross paths.? It is not enforceable and the only thing that can keep order is a willingness to act reasonably and not set every act into a conflagration which is the way Debresser functions as far as anyone can tell. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 05:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC) IZAK, you "notified" several editors who you are friendly with and know would side with you. Plus, your notifications did not adhere to the strict neutrality that is required of any notice. As well, Wikipedia is a large project and there are no vested editors. Why don't you spend time editing something else for a while, on a completely different topic? I suggest the same for Dbresser. Basket of Puppies 05:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Good suggestion Basket, but right now we are in this thread here at ANI because Debresser has dragged us here, and as you may see, once he causes this to happen, he takes off and just let's others stew in it typically from the stream of complaints he files at ANI, so it was not me who decided to insert the offensive description of "smurf" and all I did was replace it with the neutral wording of "Bluish photo of Rabbi Shach" at which point Debresser claimed I was "censoring" which is silly. I now contacted 5 expert editors I know, I stand by that, I cannot contact editors I do not know and know little about. Doesn't that go for anyone? Those who oppose them monitor their pages and can respond too, that's the democratic idea of contacting someone via their talk page. I feel absolutely sure that I speak for and represent many other editors who would be offended were they to know about this situation. So I am one voice so far speaking on behalf of others not aware of this situation. Should I also call in a few anti-Jewish or anti-Haredi Judaism editors? What was not "neutral" about my message by the way? Please show me how you would have worded a message, I would like to learn from you. I mean how absurd is this going to get? Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 05:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC) It occurs to me that you would be better off directing your irritation toward the website that posted that ugly photo and a few others. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Dear Baseball Bugs: WP is not in the business of "policing" or commenting about what is posted on the Internet at large. This discussion relates to a sub-title on a WP talk page that described a WP:NOTABLE rabbi as "Smurf Shach" and once that was done on WP, it became subject to WP conventions that require that subjects of articles not be mocked or derided on their related talk pages, no matter what the subject may be. No one would tolerate an encyclopedia article's talk page about a Nazi becoming a venue for calling such a person a "smurf" let alone a talk page for a rabbi who has done no proven harm to anyone, is not a criminal, and should not be subject to gratuitous caricaturization simply because he is hated by Chabad for his criticism of that movement (that in any case is discussed in the body of the article with proper citations), but who has expressed his views on matters that some may agree with and others don't, which is fine, but allowing subject of articles to be foolishly denigrated on WP talk pages is a slippery slope that, if allowed everywhere on WP could create bedlam and destroy the spirit of WP:CIVIL and much more. So please stop with the red herring distractions, and no the photo itself does not interest me, it is what was said on WP and the way it was used to "make fun" for no good reason, and let's focus on why this is relevant to WP and not to what is or is not posted on external web sites that WP does not control and has no interest in. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC) He was making fun of the picture. You were out of line changing the heading. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Calling a notable subject a "smurf" in any heading is out of line and can even be deleted on sight, I was kind, I merely changed it to "Bluish photo of Rabbi Shach". Obviously you disagree, but so far the admins and the consensus has been not to allow the word "smurf" in the heading and it has been changed accordingly. IZAK (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC) The OP was making fun of the photo. You got a problem with that, go to the website that posted several photos uglier than that one. Your obsession with this term "Smurf" is silly. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC) To repeat: WP and its editors are not the policeman or commentators on what gets posted on the World Wide Web's billions of pages. On the other hand WP editors are responsible for what gets posted and stated on WP pages solely. It is not an "obsession" to know that calling anyone a "smurf" is not a "compliment" it is an insult and if it's a "joke" then it is in 'very poor taste and unbefitting a serious encyclopedia's content either on a talk page or in an article. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Your lack of perspective on this is almost as funny as the comment that started all this. But it's plain to see there's nothing to be gained by keeping it open. Feel free to re-open if you disagree with the closure. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC) However, if you're really concerned about the rabbi being demeaned, then remove that link from the article, with its photos that practically beg to be ridiculed for their amateurish appearance and the unflattering way their subject is portrayed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC) The rabbi lived to well-over 100 years, so he is entitled to look very old in his photos and he, depicted in his candid photos some of which may be of poor quality, does not deserved to be pilloried by anyone for any reason. IZAK (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Debresser This is truly a case of the pot calling the kettle black. While Debresser makes up wild accusations on a whim, he forgets that it is he that is on probation from the ArbCom who ruled in January 2010 at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Proposed decision#Future proceedings: "...if user-conduct problems worsen, then a request to reopen this case may be filed." Debresser has indulged in much of his own outright censoring of what he deems as the "anti-Chabad" symbols, as enumerated (as of January 2010) at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence#User:Debresser’s pro-Chabad POV editing and diffs that leaves no doubt where his POV and prejudices are, while he wastes no time in disparaging anyone (either subjects of articles or WP editors) that he deems to be "censoring" him when it is just the opposite as he continues with his own agenda. Based on this he should receive a serious reprimand and block. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC) IZAK, go write an encyclopedia or something. Debresser, you too. And you - yes, you, reading this because the section title popped up on your watchlist - go write a damn encyclopedia, or at least improve one if you find it lying around somewhere on this website. Don't write anything here - write things in the encyclopedia. Don't tell me I've got it all wrong - go prove me wrong, by improving the encyclopedia, instead of lengthening this crawling horror of a thread. If the other guy's a shithead, go improve the encyclopedia. If you're despairing because other people can't quite see how badly you've been wronged, go write an article. If you can't let things go because someone else might have the last word, go add references where they are lacking. Stop posting here. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Hi Gavia: Welcome! Kindly see WP:NOTPAPER and WP:NOTCENSORED and well as WP:CIVIL. No one is forcing you or anyone to be here. Otherwise please contribute constructively. Thanks so much, IZAK (talk) 06:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Gavia immer—you say, "IZAK, go write an encyclopedia or something." But that is what he is doing. The Talk page of an article is involved in the process of writing an encyclopedia. It isn't a creative writing forum. Within reason, merely tangentially related comments can serve a useful, even if not direct purpose. We can even extend our principle of assuming good faith to the first section title. But a point came at which the Talk page was reverted to a point closer to its primary purpose, and that should have been recognized. Bus stop (talk) 09:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Not yet I re-opened it again because I don't see consensus for closure; what I see is certain editors trying to impose their will on the matter. If there's an actual admin out there, he could close it if he thinks it's appropriate. Rob and Puppies were out of line. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Speak for yourself, its not out of line to good faith close a thread, repeatedly reopening a thread could well be, but that is you that is doing that, I suggest you stop playing games here and get over it. Off2riorob (talk) 06:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Take your own advice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC) And by the way, if a certain few nannies here had left the original section alone in the first place, this whole megillah could have been avoided. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC) You should also get over yourself and stop referring to good faith users as nannies, just because you see nothing wrong with insulting labels doesn't make you correct. Off2riorob (talk) 06:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Look who's talking. You were out of line closing the thread, and IZAK was out of line for changing the header in the first place. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC) I am not out of line and neither is a good faith request to make a header more neutral, when he altered it the users like you and the other guys who insisted on ignoring his request and your repeated reopening and closing of this thread are all bad judgements. The correct response in the first instance would have been , yes no worries. Off2riorob (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Actually, the correct response would be to remove the external link from the article, since the link itself demeans its subject by posting so many amateurish and ugly photos, and invites the ridicule that you so deplore. A first-grader with magazines and scissors and construction paper could do a better job than that website did. Unless you all are really that desparate for free photos? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC) The link you refer to has many photos, perhaps around 20 or so, and you are referring to one that is far down the list, and you make such a fuss over such a minor detail? All that was requested was that the demeaning word "smurf" not be used, just as no one would like it to describe any religious or important figure. IZAK (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Proposed Closing This whole ANI has broken down into a drama club meeting. I'd like to point out a few things: User:Insert coins has already admited that the title was a light-hearted joke [16]. User:IZAK was justified in this aspect for changing the title. User:Debresser jumped the gun by going straight to ANI. He made one comment to IZAK, telling him that if he reverted the title again, he would go straight to ANI, rather than discussing the issue on the article's talk page. User:IZAK did participate in votestacking AFTER this issue was brought to ANI. He did not relay the information to the other editors in a NPOV fashion. I propose that this ANI should be closed. The incident on the talk page has been archived for having not relevance to inprovement. Ishdarian|lolwut 06:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC) You're wrong. It is relevant. It has to do with policy issues. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Please stop accusing editors of being "right" or "wrong" based on your obvious POVs. Step back and let the process proceed. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Delete the link to that ugly website and you can consider the matter closed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC) *Oppose unless an uninvolved admin closes it - IZAK is the culprit here. He was out of line changing the heading just because he was reading things into it that weren't necessarily there. Someone made fun of a photo. Big deal. Get an uninvolved admin here, and he/she can close it if appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Never mind, I've reclosed it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Support because the problem was already on the go before I took note of it. Time to close as things are going nowhere. The photo is of a very real and highly WP:NOTABLE rabbi, it's not just about a blue-tinted "photo" somewhere out there in cyberspace. It was Debresser who really inflamed this entire issue by cutting off any dialogue on the talk page and dragging it into ANI instead of trying to work to defuse things. For the record, as of this instant not a single one of the 5 editors I contacted have even commented here so far. In addition, the entire discussion seems to have grown over the past 3-4 days when the Jewish Holiday of Rosh Hashanah was being observed followed by Shabbat, thus depriving almost all observant Judaic editors or those admins active in WP:JUDAISM from having a chance to respond here. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Still not yet OK, there's some serious hypocrisy going on here. Someone posts a link from that article that has ugly photos. Someone on the talk page points out how ugly they are, how they make him look a particular cartoon character. The editor gets yelled at for "demeaning" the subject. Yet the link remains in the article. The photo page itself demeans the subject. Get rid of that link, unless you think it's OK for some external source to demean the subject. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC) The pictures of Rabbi Shach being referenced do nothing to demean the subject. It is the editors who choose to post irrelevant comments about a page who are demeaning. Wikipedia is not a forum and the comment that started this debate had no purpose here in the first place. BB, please stop accusing editors reverting your edits of bad faith. This is doing nothing but inciting drama. Ishdarian|lolwut 09:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC) I was asking knowledgeable editors what this outlandish photo was meant to represent (not "whom", but "what"). Was that irrelevant? I don't think so! --Insert coins (talk) 10:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Yes, it was irrelevant. Like I stated above, Wikipedia is not a forum. If you had a question about a picture on an outside source that is not Wikipedia, there are places to go and ask about it, like WP:Help Desk. It really isn't the place to discuss that kind of stuff on the talk page, especially when you're trying to make a joke out of it. Ishdarian|lolwut 12:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC) They continue to defend garbage photos while criticizing those who dared to point it out. I can't think of any other reason to defend keeping that website as an external link except that the photos are "free" (and not worth the price). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC) If anyone still cares about this matter, here's the website in question:[17] First, it's apparently in Hebrew, and foreign language sites are typically not used in wikipedia. If there were an English version, maybe it would have some useful content, such as explaining the photos? The so-called "Smurf" photo, which looks to be just a really poor quality TV screen capture, is down near the bottom. There are some other bad ones in there, like a black and white shot from his youth that looks like a xerox copy of a school photo that's blown up to a hundred times its original size; and the "good" ones are at best Polaroid quality. I didn't think "Smurf" when I saw that blue-toned photo - I thought about the fat kid in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory who ate too many blueberries and turned blue himself. (I wonder if the rabbi knew the words to the "Oompa Loompa Song"?) If that kind of photo is the best y'all can come up with, for this presumably important and dignified man, then you're better off just not using that site. There's no rule requiring photos in these articles. If someone could find ONE good photo and then post it directly in the article, and delete that link, that would be a significant improvement. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Comment - Looking at the revision made BEFORE this discussion was closed by BB, it seems that now he just wants the pictures removed by any means neccesary. Ishdarian|lolwut 12:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Yes, because the hypocrisy of all this finally dawned on me. If you're going to leave that link there, then you can expect further ridiculing of those photos in the future. Get rid of the link, and that problem goes away. And don't repeat Izak's bogus argument about how we shouldn't criticize other websites. This is America, and we can criticize anything we bloody well want to. And we're not required to keep links to websites whose photos make the subject look like a cartoon character. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Please take this to the talk page. AN/I is not a forum for content disputes. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 12:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC) It's also a policy dispute, as you yourself cited "not censored", yet this discussion began because of Izak conducting censorship. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Quote bug, "This is America, and we can criticize anything we bloody well want to" - this is getting more and more ridiculous, what a silly comment. Off2riorob (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Maybe to a non-American, but we Americans cherish our right to criticize. And you all engaged in censorship by deciding that an editor had no right to comment on an ugly photo. You're dead wrong. It's not just a content dispute. You keep insisting the rabbi was "demeaned". It is THE PHOTO that makes him look stupid. It is THE PHOTO that demeans him. Get through your head, will you? It's about THE PHOTO. You had no right to censor a valid criticism. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Yawn, you've lost the plot here, you would do well to move back from the dead donkey. Off2riorob (talk) 13:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC) If you, the one so concerned about "demeaning" this rabbi, is OK with having a photo of him that looks like a Smurf, or like Violet in the Willie Wonka movie, then I don't know what to think. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Baseball bugs is, IMO, becoming disruptive on this issue. This closure has now been reverted a number of times (the last time by GiftigerWunsch arguing that an admin needs to close it [I disagree but nvm :)], which is why I have left it open). However the discussion is clogging AN/I despite not being an AN/I issue (and mostly consists of a content dispute masquerading as Bugs beating a dead horse. Unless an admin issue can still be shown to exist I don't see why this cannot be closed. It is, frankly, getting silly. --'Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 13:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC) If an admin (which you ain't) thinks it should be closed, OR if the original poster thinks it should be closed, that's fine. Curiously, the admins have done nothing. Maybe they're getting some laughs out of this whole mega-megillah. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC) While the quality of the photos at the web site are a nonissue, I think they are fine photos. I don't have a problem with them. Are we allowed to alter them? If a blueish cast is found to be objectionable are we permitted to color-adjust it? But this man is not a celebrity. He's not youthful. He is not a sports figure in his prime of life. Though he is notable, he is probably obscure to most people. I don't know what criteria should apply to man of his identity. But subjective evaluations of pictorial images aside, a section heading was put in place that was fanciful, to say the least. There was no harm done—another editor came along and replaced that section title with one with more restrained implications. This was done because the section heading first in place led to associations that were too erratic and extraneous to the discussion that needed to take place on that Talk page, in that section, about a choice involving photos of the subject of the article. A new section title was in order to help us focus on what at least one editor felt was wrong with one or more of the photos at that web site. A dispassionate discussion of that issue concerning the qualities of the photos was called for. Hopefully we can get back to discussing the issue concerning the photos and any accompanying qualities; that should be done on the article Talk page. But this thread is not about whether the photos are of a quality to warrant their placement in our article. This thread is totally about the derailing of efforts to write an article. Efforts that are scattered this way are a waste of everyone's time. Bus stop (talk) 13:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC) OK, you are one editor I respect. Feel free to box up the article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC) (outdent) This whole charade needs to be listed at WP:LAME. Kindzmarauli (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Indeed. I think that was even mentioned earlier. It could have been avoided altogether, had Izak not decided to be a nanny. My assumption at this point is that the admins kept it open for amusement's sake. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Hey Mr. Baseball Bugs, feel free to act irritated but you have no right to cross the line and violate WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL by calling me a "nanny" oh, and when did that become an "American" expression? Cool it, you are going to far with your WP:SPIDERMAN routine here, as more than one editor has already pointed out to you. IZAK (talk) 22:29, 13 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.[18] 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.[19] 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[20] 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[21] 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.[22] 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.[23] 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.[24] 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,[25] some like Template:WikiProject Wine which were unprotected before HJ and then someone else undid HJ's protection but changed the setting to semi,[26] 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.[27] 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)

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)

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)

Revelation of personal identity, and lot more

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I had no idea that this would be sanctionable: The only time I have seen this is when another user (a Greek editor) was called by a name other than his prior nick. I dropped by WhiteWriter's talkpage to ask him about how he can make [[28] such an edit], and called him by his prior nick: had no clue that was his own name. I have been editing in two years now and saw WhiteWriters's prior nick hundreds of times. His track is still there in his history and his signatures are written thousand of times with the old name. I have communicated with him under that nick dozens of times. His edits can still be seen under that nick and the signature is there. What I advise to him is Wikipedia:CLEANSTART#CLEANSTART if he wants to lose all his prior track. Lots of other people that have long time known him like I have may fall under the same trap. Still, I apologize: if that's what WhiteWriter wants to be called now, that's fine with me. Thank you for letting me know. --Sulmues ^(talk) 16:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with TFOWR that it seems inadvertent, it looks like a one-off remark. Sulmues' explanation above sheds more light; if that was a prior username (which means that you once chose to reveal your own name) then that makes it even less likely that it was an act of malicious intent. With the promise not to refer to that name again I'd consider this resolved. -- Atama頭 17:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR and Afterwriting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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: [29][30][31][32][33][34]. 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)

Pagemove vandalism needs repair

Resolved

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

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

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

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

Jaranwala

User:Ndhaq-[35][36] [37] [38] has added these promotional materials to the Jaranwala article. Some other I.P.s have also been adding similar material to this article. I have left their diffs on the article talk page. This user was previously blocked for similar activities and is now back to his antics. It appears to be a single purpose account. The other I.P.s may or may not be his socks. It appears that his I.P. was also blocked previously.-Civilizededucation^talk 18:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Freakshownerd

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 [39] 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)

User talk:Naturalpsychology

Moved from WP:AN

User talk:Naturalpsychology has used an example naming me in a false and inappropriate way.[40] He has compared actual accusations made again JWs with hypothetical accusations against me in a manner which implies that both accusations have been made. I would like the edit deleted.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am fully aware that it was purportedly intended as an example. However, that example is entirely misleading in whichever way it is examined. If it is taken to mean that such accusations have been made about me, it is clearly libellous. But if it is taken to mean that such accusations have not actually been made about me, it is not consistent with the comparison it seeks to make, because the accusations in question (regardless of whether they are true) have in fact been made about the JW religion (there are organisations and websites devoted to that purpose), and are considered sufficiently notable by the religion to provide a rebuttal at their media site[41]. (By extension, all of the 'accusations' are cited in the body of the article.) Because the 'example's' alleged purpose therefore makes no sense, it seems clear that its only real purpose was to offend.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You might want to rethink "libelous", as you're walking into WP:NLT territory. You are an anonymous person behind a userid, how can you be personally libelled? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of "libellous" is simply echoing what another user said above. No legal threat is intended or should be inferred.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:29, 13 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. [42] and [43] and [44], 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 [45] [46]. 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 [47][48][49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55]. 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[56]. 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 [57]
• 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][58] 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 [59]) 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, 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)

User:Welchs12

Resolved

User:Welchs12 has been determined to be a sockpuppet here, but there is a backlog at SPI so he has not yet been blocked. He is now removing info from his own case. Will an admin please block this editor? Thank you, Alanraywiki (talk) 01:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It has been resolved. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 03:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Palenque Island Conflict of Interest

Resolved

 – HJMitchell has reexamined the issue and ended up removing the offending material and blocking the editor who added it. Looie496 (talk) 02:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Palenque Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I need some admin help on a serious conflict of interest and defamatory practices from Factorx1983 (talk · contribs). I'm not sure how to properly notify him, so someone please fix this is it's wrong. Template:Factorx1983:ANI-notice

This person is known to me and my company, and has been harassing our employees and customers for months, in the flesh and now in this forum. Despite intervention from the courts and the police, they continue to find ways to attempt to discredit our legitimate business on Palenque Island, also known as Isla Palenque. Yes, my company is building a resort on this island so we definitely are not impartial, but we created this page over a year ago and we have always tried to contribute in a way that is informative and in keeping with the encyclopedic style, as you will see when you review it. All we have done is remove content from the last 48 hours that is clear misuse. We have made no attempt to tell our side of the legal story on the page. I know it's not Wikipedia's job to settle legal disputes, so I have not made an attempt to explain our side of the story here. However, I would be happy to if anyone thinks it's important.

I have reviewed the conflict of interest page and I am sure that any neutral editor would agree that their edits are a clear conflict of interest and defamatory and are not in the best interest of Wikipedia. They are posting false information to further a personal grudge and talk about their side of a legal dispute - that is conflict of interest. They have put my name and my husband's name in the post - those are personal attacks. They are posting false information about us and our company - that is defamation.

The page was protected today, I'm sure in good faith by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). That would be a relief, except it got protected with all this awful content on it. This is doing great harm to me personally and to my company.

Can someone please review the edits from the last 48 hours? I think it will be clear what it going on. And please accept my apologies for any errors in procedure, as I have never used this page before. Flimoncelli (talk) 01:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

•  
  1. Wikipedia:No legal threats — Don't bring Wikipedia into your external legal dispute, in any way. Even trying to explain your "side" of the dispute is probably unwise, since it will of course prompt your opponents to try to oppose you here. This just isn't the place for any of that.
  2. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons — HJ Mitchell has already, and correctly in my and Looie496's views, made sure that The Wrong Version is one without the libellous statements about living people. No further action seems warranted here.
• Uncle G (talk) 01:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• And the process for notifying another user is to paste {{subst:ANI-notice}} on the other user's talk page. I have done this for you at User talk:Factorx1983. David Biddulph (talk) 01:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the help, and I will take your advice. Sincerely, Flimoncelli (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

EmausBot creating pages with only interwikis

EmausBot (talk · contribs) has been creating empty pages and marking them for A1, without an edit summary.

• List of pages:

• 1936–37 La Liga
• 1937–38 La Liga
• 1938–39 La Liga
• 1999–100 Eredivisie
• 2007–08 French Division 1

 ℳono  02:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• It was probably a bot failure, and it seems that the bot operator is fixing the issue. Will check if this is cross-wiki or just on the English Wikipedia. --Diego Grez (talk) 02:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

  Not according to Luxo's tool. Mono, try contacting the bot operator. --Diego Grez (talk) 02:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I am unable to do so (language and account barriers). If anyone wants to ask the user, please do so.  ʄlame (report mistake) 02:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Err... Emaus does speak English. Anyway... HJ Mitchell blocked the bot until the problem is fixed. Diego Grez (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• (ec w/Diego) I've nuked the pages and blocked the bot (ABD) pending an explanation or a fix. Any other admin should feel free to restore the pages and unblock the bot as and when necessary without further consultation with me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• I gave explanations on HJ Mitchell's talk page --Emaus (talk) 03:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I changed the title of the section. As far as I know it is not possible to create an empty page, that is, a page with 0 bytes of content. You can make an existing page into a 0 byte page but the system won't let you create them out of nothing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Anon 75.142.152.104 redirected a bunch of articles for no reason

If you check out the recent activity of user 75.142.152.104, he just redirected a BUNCH of Transformers articles that are currently under nomination for deletion, but no decision has been made for them yet. Many of these articles were overwhelming keep too, like Grimlock and Beachcomber (Transformers)! Mathewignash (talk) 02:20, 13 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 [60]. 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 [61] 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)

• 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)

• 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?

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)
• 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)

Cyrus related articles - an anti-Iranian conspiracy?

I seriously doubt it. However, see this blog The Cyrus Cylinder, Wikipedia and Iran conspiracies which may explain the sudden changes in articles such as Cyrus the Great, Cyrus Cylinder, etc. Some eyes on these articles might be useful, and if there are any problems we may need semi-protection. We're even getting deletions at other articles which may be related, eg removing a mention of one of the earliest examples of propaganda, the Behistun inscription. [62]. This [63] has an edit summary "Bringing back section which was removed by anti-Iranian racist" which is a clear attack on one of our editors. Dougweller (talk) 11:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Cyrus the Great? I am sure there is enough material here for a novel. Hans Adler 12:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:ScienceApologist

 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)

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. [64][65] 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)

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)

Possible Gypsydog5150 sock?

Resolved

 – Blocked Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Mistersmiley69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

New account, same interests, knows how to use references... HalfShadow 15:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

 Confirmed. Blocking the account now. Sockpuppet investigations is down the hall, second door on your left, by the way. ;-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Huntlands

Resolved

 – This has nothing to do with improving Wikipedia articles. No admin attention required. Fences&Windows 19:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This user says she writes under the pen name J S Huntlands and has written a series of books called "Me and my best friend". This evening on channel 5 (UK) she claims that her son (aged 6, name Leo Hunter) has written "Me & my best friend". Something wrong here. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:32, 13 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[66], and has been talking about "cease and desist" and copyright violations since at least July[67][68][69]. It does seem to think highly of Marty Munsch[70]... 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[71], and the IP has been suspected of being MM in the past by at least one editor[72]... 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)

Nipples - I have two, how about you?

Moved from WP:AN

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

---

Resolved, and simply generating more heat than light now.

Resolved

 – Users unblocked GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Cirt has indef blocked User:Nipples20 and User:Nippletaco for violating our username policy ("Your username is the only reason for this block"). Per earlier ANI threads (Block review of User:Nipple37 and Haven't I seen your nipples somewhere before), the inclusion of the word "nipple" is not a violation of WP:USERNAME. These users should be unblocked. Hopefully this thread will serve as a reminder for admins that they should be blocking based on violations of the community's standards, not their own. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This should be on ANI, you should have informed Cirt, and most importantly, you should have discussed this with Cirt first. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done, unblocked. Confused as to why Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) failed to approach me at my user talk page, first. :( -- Cirt (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If they wanted to make an announcement like this, the UAA talkpage would have worked best, or else it's a massive failure to AGF (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This wasn't an incident report as such, since based on the previous two discussions on ANI, this seems to be a recurring issue. Cirt is only the latest admin to block users whose usernames contain the word "nipple". I started this thread on AN quite deliberately so that it would be seen by more admins. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This latest comment from Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) neglects to explain why the individual reported (myself) was not notified, and why zero attempts at resolving this were made, prior to speedy reporting to an admin board. -- Cirt (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, you were notified fairly quickly, which is why I struck my comment; I replied within about 45 seconds of the thread being posted. It should have been discussed with you first though. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Nod, yup, should have been discussed with me first. Should have at the very least attempted to have discussed with me first. No prior attempts at dispute resolution were made, whatsoever, before coming straight to an admin board. :( -- Cirt (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, I have no doubt that you would have unblocked if asked, but as I've said here and on my talk page, and as should be clear from reading the original post, this isn't specifically about you or your recent blocks. I hoped it would serve as an apparently necessary reminder that the word "nipple" is not considered offensive by the community and is not a violation of the username policy. There was no "dispute" to attempt to resolve with you on your talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oh come on Cirt, you made bad blocks and your only defence is to moan about it being pointed out? Did you bother with "prior attempt at dispute resolution" before making the bad blocks? DuncanHill (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

  Please see WP:AGF and WP:CIV. Frankly it's not required to mount a "defence" for exercising admin discretion in interpreting WP:USERNAME, without knowledge of prior (old) consensus. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to AGF if Cirt had bothered to tell the editors that he had unblocked them, or apologised to them for his mistake. Instead he came here to moan about DC. DuncanHill (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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)

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)