Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Worsening talk page abuse at Talk:Aspartame controversy

Resolved

 – All parties have had their say, the article has been reviewed. No admin action needed at this time. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

There are two major current problems at Talk:Aspartame controversy (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs): accusations of conflict of interest and general talk page abuse. The issue of conflict of interest accusations was discussed here (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive652#Ongoing accusations of conflict of interest) and things have gone downhill. Since then, the tone had been maintained by
Immortale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)—(accusation, advisory and rejecting AGF)— and
TickleMeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)—accusation, other disruptive claims. These are cold and the editors are currently inactive. They are mentioned to show the duration of the problem and how the tone was set for other editors who have recently picked up the banner:

Jmpunit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) accusation and advice
Arydberg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) accusation and advice — failure to assume good faith

The latter has been flooding the page with claims, but nothing constructive that could ever be used in the article, despite numerous warnings about talk page abuse. Warnings on his page and in response to his posts (see User talk:Novangelis/Archive 1#Re aspartame controversy editing for diffs and third party involvement) have gone unheeded. It is established that he knows how to ask for help on his talk page even if it is only about concern of who might generate a block, not why. If talk page guidelines had been instilled successfully, we would not have seen a challenge to debate the issue.

He was told that if he wanted to rewrite the article he could do so on his talk page. Instead, he used the article talk page to rewrite a section, then a detailed critique was demanded by Jmpunit, and promptly rejected by Arydberg. As a final example, he posted a conference announcement in French and was told it was not a reliable source. Rather than move on, he reposted it with a machine translation.

The talk page mushroomed to almost 200kB (I just tweaked the archiving gently, so it decreased a bit) with little to show; the useful content is hard to find amid the postings of links followed by explanations of WP:RS, and the accusations followed by WP:TPA/WP:AGF. I'm not going to claim to be a saint. I recognize that I've been curt or even snippy at times and responded on the page (rather than user talk) more than I should have, but no one on the page seems to be able to get basic policies to be followed. The ongoing accusations of COI probably have been contributing to the rejection of the policy advisories—experienced editors are undercut when perceived as "shills". I'm hoping that some outside admin involvement can reign things in. Some semblance of order needs to be restored to the page. Thank you.Novangelis (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Warning left for soapboxing. This is clearly past the acceptable advocacy level here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe that this page is covered by the Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions, and was preparing to submit this to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. If GWH's warning suffices, though, I am satisfied and will forbear. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's something I've collected to show the extent of the problem:

Articles

• Aspartame controversy
• Aspartame
• Excitotoxicity
• Monosodium glutamate
• Water fluoridation controversy

User(s)/socks .. (are we actually only dealing with maybe two people)....and EXTREMELY good examples of SPAs

• Twoggle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Safe2trust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Stealthcupcake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TickleMeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TickleMeister's talk page history. Note myriad controversies are hidden because of extremely frequent archiving, IOW what amounts to avoiding the scrutiny of other editors.
• AllYrBaseRbelongUs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Blocked
• Jmpunit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Note
• Arydberg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Soundly rebuffed at MEDRS.

Boards, SPIs, discussions

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive652#Ongoing_accusations_of_conflict_of_interest
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TickleMeister/Archive
• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-31 Aspartame controversy
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive629#Aspartame_articles

I don't know how much it helps, but it shows where to start digging. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Ticklemeister's parting shot is worth noting: I'm taking a very long break from fighting the PR men. In spite of everything, he still assumes bad faith in a blockable manner. I don't think he should be allowed back. Just lock the door. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a response from Arydberg.Novangelis (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

If Arydberg's 'goodbye' is genuine, then this thread may have served its purpose. If he returns to continue his previous line of argument at Talk:Aspartame controversy, then a 24-hour block for disruption may be needed. Our article talk pages are not open to endless soapboxing by people who aren't paying attention. EdJohnston (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

After that was deleted, he then repeated it, with more, here. He's basically canvassing for support and hopes that Kingoomieiii will help him. Sigh... A 24 hr. block is far too little. Give him at least a month considering he's been wasting the time of numerous editors for more than that. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

LMFAO! A brilliant reply. Read the whole paragraph. -- Brangifer (talk) 09:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that message wasn't so funny at 3 AM. --King Öomie 18:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The goodbye was not very durable.Novangelis (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

A number of editors are soapboxing on these articles, pushing a fringe view, which is disruptive. They have also accused other editors of being paid by the manufacturers of Aspartame. TFD (talk) 05:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

98.149.114.34 (talk) has added to the list of COI accusers with this edit and adds a previously discussed blog link which currently is discussed in its own section on the current active page.Novangelis (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually I accused no one , I cited the fact that Wikipedia is a user based blog and that it would be unusual for there not to be company representatives doing some editing given their product is costing them millions to promote. False or damaging information on Wikipedia happens every day since it is only a objective as it's users. I accused no one. I know of Dr.s on other articles editing wiki blogs that are to do with their subject when in the real world that would be a conflict of interest. As I said , you accept those limitations or you don't but banning users for generally acknowledging it seems, silly. My real crime was discussing my own Asparatame experience. That I admit, not a discussion forum issue even though at the time my blindness from Asparatame felt like it had relevance. Yes, I missed the other link , is that a Wiki crime ? Posting an article you missed under current discussion ? 98.149.114.34 (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I will respond to this the same way I did to your other, substantively identical post at the article in question. You seem to be drawing a line of acceptability between "Accusing editors of being paid shills" and "Repeatedly insisting there's nothing wrong with accusing editors of being paid shills". This is a distinction I don't recognize. If you insist that you're not accusing anyone, why are you repeating your point? Unless you're implying that there are editors AT THE ARTICLE who are paid shills, it's not relevant to insist "Hey, there are paid shills elsewhere". Your implication is itself an accusation. --King Öomie 18:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

For the record: When critique was "demanded" by me I was referring to TFD's comment not to Arydberg's. Also I am not a "Sock" nor do I collaborate with anyone else; the link that says "note" refers to a message on Ticklemeister's page which was a response to a message he/she left on my page. The title of this section should be "Aspartame Controversy: NPOV issues" rather than its present title as many of the editors that are mentioned here including myself (and others) believe that the Aspartame Controversy article is mostly one sided. When an editor brings a source that could be used in the article that challenges this bias it is immediately shot down in a rude and arrogant way (the talk pages will confirm this). I and others have even asked that the NPOV tag be placed on the article to reflect this and an edit war began: when one would put the tag up another would take it down. Many of the users brought up here are frustrated at the lack of cooperation and lack of willingness of others to work together on this page. I feel this is far more disruptive than the above issues that are mentioned.Jmpunit (talk) 06:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

For the record, when the critique was given, you shot back with "Nope" and refused to explain. --King Öomie 18:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The POV pushing goes on unabated. Can we please do something about this? These WP:SPAs have been disrupting these pages for months now. Yobol (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly the type of behavior I'm talking about. Repeating what I have written in a rude and arrogant way ("For the record") are the types of comments that are made anytime editors are trying to engage in a fruitful discussion of the article at hand. Furthermore I have a serious concern as to the slanted direction this article (aspartame controversy) takes and continue to attempt the discussion of such issues. But apparently this is considered disruptive by some. These allegations are unfounded and thwart the progress of this article. Jmpunit (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

If you thought THAT was a rude and arrogant turn of phrase, wait until I point "These allegations are unfounded and thwart the progress of this article" back at you in reference to every time you've ever accused us of taking money from a corporation to keep the article as-is. Where do you get off?

Your concerns about the article are fine. Your ACTIONS are plainly disruptive. --King Öomie 04:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

To state that I have accused you and others (several times) of taking money from a corporation to keep this article as-is is a blatant lie and you won't be able to prove this because it NEVER HAPPENED. My point continues to gain weight when you make comments like "Where do you get off?" or ask me did you "ever write an essay in high school?" This insolent tone needs to stop! Jmpunit (talk) 07:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

To my recollection (and a review of the archives which was not line for line due to the sheer volume), this was the first time that Jmpunit has mentioned paid editing. This editor argues obstructionism (or wikilawyering) after any source is rejected, even in this case where the material was rejected three times on three different RS pages (1, 2, 3). Given that there were enough instances where editors were asked to stop implying that editors are paid on the page at that time, it stretches the limits of AGF to assume that it was just an unfortunate choice of words. The inflammatory nature of the post ("Congratulations on writing a paragraph." and "There is no need to entertain your paranoid rambling...") does not help. Even if it was nothing more than an horridly mistimed exclamation, it illustrates my original point that the pattern of ongoing COI accusations is disruptive to the editing environment and needs to stop.Novangelis (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I have checked, you're correct. The only edit from him that would imply that is this, which I will assume is innocent of that accusation (though it has about 15 other problems). I apologize- it must have been the OTHER two highly-active anti-aspartame advocates that called us all paid shills. --King Öomie 16:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I have reviewed the article and its references as a (hopefully) impartial - at any rate a new - pair of eyes and left some comments on the talk page. I am not experienced in detecting and dealing with socks so I will have to leave the lists of suspects above to someone who is! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not forbidden in Wikipedia to bring up the possibility of a COI, especially in controversial matters where a lot of money is involved. All I said was "It makes me wonder about the COI of people here, when they are so faithful towards the food industry." And the reason was that I repeatedly pointed out to food lobby websites, being owned by Ajinomoto, as not a reliable and valid source. Still, some people bring it back every time... Immortale (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

"I didn't explicitly call anyone a shill, I just suggested people who disagree with me may be shills. And for kicks, I'll do it here too." This is appropriate behavior? Anyone? Yobol (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure re-heating this part of the debate is (1) appropriate use of ANI or (2) useful anywhere, in any case. I propose to mark this topic resolved and would counsel all editors to restrict their contributions to the talk page, and to discussion of the content of the article. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I would simply ask that the COI accusations and such end. WP:AGF is an important thing. Dbrodbeck (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Incivility blocks

Resolved

 – Thanks for the input folks. I think I've been misunderstood here - I'm not actually going to be blocking for incivility as you have all understood it, but for 'personal attacks' or 'disruption through incivility', something which I've not done in the past. However, it's interesting to see the responses that people gave, and the community's opinion of the issue. Clearly, something needs to be done to stop the newbies being scared away without acting like the 'civility police'. If anyone has any private thoughts, I'd welcome an email discussion on the subject of 'what to do'. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

In light of recent events, I'm going to start blocking for incivility - something I don't normally do. This will be a contentious decision, I know, but my mind is made up. What lengths do other admins currently use for this sort of thing? Is a 12 hour block the standard? Is there a 'gradual scale', as with 3RR blocks - 24,48,1 week etc? Thoughts welcome. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Usually about a half hour, then a right thinking admin makes the unblock.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Generally it depends on the degree to which you dislike your victim. Some admins start with 10-second blocks and work up from there. In fact it isn't even necessary that your victims are actually incivil, just that you claim they are. Malleus Fatuorum 20:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and if you're looking to block or otherwise sanction someone for questioning authority, remember that revenge is a dish best served cold. Also, IRC is your friend. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I've only seen one or two people ever get blocked for incivility, but I've seen many have their blocks extended or indef'ed, and then have talk page access revoked because of incivility. ... Is it possible to revoke talk page access without blocking them? There've been a few users I've seen that that'd help ("Oh, I was never warned about that... More than 4 times... On more than five occasions... By three people..."). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm talking about big incivility - long rants attacking a user personally, disruption-style stuff, even repeatedly using edit summaries such as "reverting: your edit, while well meant, was fucking awful and you're a shit editor". Not blocking for this tiny stuff people complain about - that's best handled by a cup of tea. The concept of block of less than 12 hours is rather worrying, to be honest. I'd never make one of those. Malleus, in good faith - and because I honestly want your opinion on this - can I ask you what sort of incivility would be appropriate for, say, a 12 hour block? Direct it at me if it'll make you feel better :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm neither Malleus nor an admin, but I already have a Reichstag model and a Spiderman action figure: I guess (this is directed at noone) that "bitch-ass smegma-brained cock-sucking father-fucking cunt-faced needle-dicked shit-breath'd piss-blooded cum-saliva'd meekrab" would be worth at least 48 hours if it were actually directed at someone. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

If I ruled the world I doubt that I would ever block any editor for incivility, but not for the reasons that so many might think. The incivility would have to be causing a problem for the project somewhere for me to become concerned about it. Simply expressing an unpopular opinion (have I ever told you about the time I was blocked for using the word "sycophantic"?) or asking another another editor to "fuck off" aren't things I'd be worried about. The real reason to block is to prevent whatever damage is being caused to the project by the perceived incivility; very often it's none at all, just some civility policeman sticking his nose in where it's neither necessary nor welcome. Malleus Fatuorum 21:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

With the above comments in mind, how do you folks go about dealing with editor who are consistently rude and abusive, and assume bad faith, even to new editors? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Depends on whether or not they're an administrator. If they're not then block; if they are, then start making excuses for their behaviour. Malleus Fatuorum 20:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

My plan in such situations is to issue three warnings (elaborate, detailed, and personal, not the automated {{uw-whatever}} message), a short block, a longer block, and a report (and it hardly ever reaches the "short block" part). That is, of course, if you are not personally involved in the matter... in which case you might want to report it first and let other admins deal with it. But that's just me.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 31, 2011; 20:53 (UTC)

Thanks! Serious answers anyone else? I know about the problems we have with incivility blocks, different rules for admins/editors, and the problems we have with incivility, and I'm hoping to come up with a solution. I'm listening to everyone about this - even banned users - because I want something that will work for everyone. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

As is readily apparent from the snarky replies here, there has been significant resistance to blocking for incivility, per se. If I were you, I would stick to blocking only for clear and specific violations of WP:No personal attacks. Anything else is a can of worms best left unopened. — Satori Son 21:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

If you can come up with a way of blocking Jimbo, Arbs, and Admins that will actually stick - well done you. As it is, it is the immunity these people have from being blocked for incivility that makes it so unproductive (to put it kindly) to contemplate blocking anyone else for incivility. DuncanHill (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

That's what I'm hoping to do. One rule for all of us, although either a very simple or very complex one. Either way, I think the final solution should not rely on blocks as an incentive. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

If it were a single NPA event, I'd probably block for 24 hours. Since you seem to be talking about persistent incivility in the face of previous warnings, I'd guess 72 hours would be a reasonable place to start. (I haven't looked to see if I can figure out who you mean, I'm just answering from personal experience.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Isn't a 24-hour block for a single occurrence of anything essentially punitive? Arakunem^Talk 21:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a matter of degree. A block for "Look, jerkface, learn to spell" would be punitive. A block for "Look, [Carlin], you can take your [Carlin]ing opinions and shove them up your [Carlin], you piece of [Carlin]", would be preventive. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

What would it be preventing? Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The block should be more about context and less about the strength of the words used. In your example above, I can envision a scenario where "Look, jerkface, learn to spell" would warrant a block, while Carlin practicing his list would not. It has to be about the effect the incivility (perceived or otherwise) is having on the location where it was placed. If it is about how offended a specific admin is, then we have a problem. Arakunem^Talk 22:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Shouldn't this be at WP:AN (if anywhere at all) ? Where is the "incident"? Where is the urgent admin action? Why are we clogging up this cess-pit of a board even further? From an arb as well - disapointing. Pedro :  Chat  20:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone (scroll up) said the board needed more drama. In any case, shall we move to AN? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, always short on drama on ANI.... I'd have thought AN was the most obvious place for this. Pedro :  Chat  21:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind a few thoughts from a non-admin. I don't think there's any one rule that can work for incivility, and the only consideration should be whether a block is going to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. Someone being abusive to a newcomer or a content creator and risking driving them away - yes, block (but not punitively - only to get their attention when talking has failed). If someone is rude to an admin, a block should only be appropriate if it is serious or long-term abuse - admins should be able to take a bit of flak (I work partly in online community moderation, and minor abuse is usually just a short term emotional reaction, and is almost always best countered by civility). And as an aside, I think the now near-legendary 10-second block was one of the worst admin actions I've seen here. I don't know who did it (and I don't want to), and I don't apologize for saying so - whoever did it should be prepared to accept honest feedback. Anyway, my main suggestion here is do not go overboard on the civility thing. The faceless nature of online communication leads people to be less civil than they would be face to face, and it can usually be diffused more effectively by civil engagement than by lashing out with punishment -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I got the 10-second block, and the perpetrator is very easily seen in my block log. I doubt you'd be surprised to discover who it was. Malleus Fatuorum 21:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

So Malleus, you are a bit of an expert on blocks from the victim's point of view. Did you find over time that you have changed your behaviour to avoid being blocked? Or have you just gone on being your gruff old self? My point being that people are who they are, and don't change much. :) --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

People are either an asset to the community, or they are not. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

(Sorry, I obviously cannot answer for Malleus, but I need to point this out): Blocks can actually embitter the blockees and change their behavour and editing mood for the worse. There are ways of calming down angry editors who have just lashed out. Blocking only works in rare cases. Judging from what I've read, it can be a very frustrating experience for regular content contributors who don't push any POV, but occasionally use strong words to make their point. I strongly second everything Boing wrote. I think it's more promising to think about ways to encourage and foster collegiality, rather than figure out ways to sanction incivility. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Switch "can embitter" for "do embitter" and we can maybe do a deal. Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I certainly haven't deliberately gone to any trouble to "change my behaviour". Perhaps the worst of the civility police invested in a dictionary and a little common sense. Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Sluzzelin that positive reinforcement works better than negative. It can a big investment in time and effort but some contributors will be worth it. The trouble is trying to determine which ones they are, beforehand. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me add to that. One thing I have taken on board is the distinction between NPA and CIV, one that administrators would do well to bear in mind before thinking about civility blocks, which frankly never work and are increasingly less likely to stick. I don't give a monkey's arse if anyone uses a few choice words, it adds colour. But there's a world of difference between saying "fuck off" and "you're a fucking cunt". The first doesn't bother me at all, but the second is unacceptable. Malleus Fatuorum 21:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you expand on the difference? Do you think the difference is clear to everyone who might be on the receiving end of either comment? 67.243.57.182 (talk) 04:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm waiting to see who gets blocked first ... pass the popcorn, please.

But seriously, this isn't going to work. We have RfC/U and ArbCom for a reason. "Incivility" is caused by others who are perceived to either be stupid, annoying, incompetent, a waste of time, or all of these. If users have a problem with each other they can both shut up and stop trying to have the last word. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The classic admin solution, blame both sides. So much easier, and avoids and of that tedious work. Malleus Fatuorum 21:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean blame both sides—I usually find it very easy to figure out who's the one being a real dick. But that doesn't give the other side permission to keep yelling at their stupidity. If someone's being uncivil, why bother responding? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

There are quite a lot of people here claiming that incivility isn't an issue. To the wider community outside Wikipedia it quite clearly is an issue. Otherwise letters like these wouldn't be being published by the Economist. If you don't click through below is the key quote (emphasis mine).

Every person I know of who has left provided the same reason, which is that Wikipedia’s rules are enforced selectively, especially the rule that members treat each other in a civil manner. One person said he had been accused of being a “nationalist”, a “racist”, a “POV-warrior”, a “troll”, a “conspirator”, a “sockpuppet” and a “meatpuppet”.

It is perfectly possible to engage with people, even people who aren't as knowledgable as you, or even those who are stubborn without being rude, so you can't really complain if you get blocked. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right on that last bit, but it's very possible that the people being accused of all those things was in fact the problematic user. Usually problematic users blame everyone else for getting them blocked. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think its fair to say that an impartial observer does have to accept that the person was in fact being incivil, and that it was more than borderline. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• If we're serious about dealing with incivility, then we have to start by thinking about which approaches have worked and which haven't. We have accumulated a substantial body of evidence over the past several years demonstrating that "civility blocks" and "civility parole" do nothing to make editors more civil, and in fact are often counterproductive. When people continue proposing blocks as a remedy for incivility, I always wonder whether they're ignorant of that body of evidence; whether they're aware of it but interpret it differently than I; or whether they're just not interested in trying to think more deeply about approaches that might actually work (or at least not be actively harmful). MastCell ^Talk 22:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The difference can be summarised very simply by comparing "that's a pile of crock" with "you're a pile of crock". I'd be inclined to take NPA very seriously, and to discard CIV to the bin of childishness. Malleus Fatuorum 22:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
    • For clarity by civility I mean not making personal attacks - its a good point that there is a difference. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
    • We can't really throw out WP:CIV because it's quite possible to be horribly rude and insulting without actually attacking other editors. We're supposed to be a collaborative project, and driving off other editors by being condescending or rude isn't helping towards that goal. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
      • You have to throw out your beloved CIV. Every substantial content contributor here knows what an insulting and degrading environment it is to work in, but those responsible for making it so are often the administrators themselves, or the other incessant low-level abusers. Those who work the system in other words. Malleus Fatuorum 23:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
        • I love how it's my "beloved CIV" now. Look, we know you have a grudge against admins as a group. You don't have to bring it up every post. And, as I posted below, I'm not dedicated to keeping CIV as an isolated policy. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• The problem Chase is that people's definitions of incivility vary (I'm often amazed how much so) and in many circumstances there's no reason to block for that reason alone, given that they are supposed to be preventative rather than punitive. So unless two guys are cursing each other out you'd be hard pressed to say it was required. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • This is true but people do have to be able to operate in society as a whole (e.g. at work), so surely we should be able to find a reasonable middle ground. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
    • A "reasonable middle ground" might to merge wikipedia's CIV and NPA policies, as the distinction between the two just makes the place look like an arbitrarily run infant's school. Malleus Fatuorum 23:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
      • See, that's where the problem lies. You know it's a good middle ground, and I know it's a good middle ground... but the reason they're split in the first place is people couldn't agree that keeping them together was a good middle ground. Back when policies and guidelines were still being formed, most folks felt it better to keep specific for each one, rather than larger, all-encompassing rules. I doubt we'd get much traction trying to merge them now. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia has a choice. Either it tries to embrace change rather than stifle it, or it dies. Right now it's dying. Malleus Fatuorum 00:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
          • I don't agree, so sorry. I think it's improving, and will continue to do so. There is a lot less dramaz nowadays, for sure, and the quality of the encyclopedia itself is constantly improving.--Diannaa ^(Talk) 00:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
            • One might argue that the reduction in "drama" is an indication that fewer people care. Certainly I've given up caring about what happens at RfA, for example. Malleus Fatuorum 02:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• Coment. There has been a debate here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muthucumaraswamy Sornarajah that may be relevant to this discussion, continued on talk page of nominator. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC).

Not relevant, as it stands. Something off-wiki - a talk about WP:CONTRIB about how tricky it is to introduce new users when we're generally pretty confusing and incivil - provoked me into starting this. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Incivility blocks? Fuck off. Incivility is too much in the eye of the beholder to have individual admins make the call, and that's always what leads to the trouble. As long as we can't figure out some kind of community-based mechanism for enforcing civility, we're not going to be able to tackle it. Obviously this means something less than Arbcom and more than WP:WQA (which in my recent experience is worse than useless), and perhaps a bit easier than WP:RFC/U. One simple approach would be to change policy to explicitly permit punitive civility and NPA blocks, but only if they are pre-endorsed by the community at ANI (or possibly somewhere else if volume becomes an issue). Rd232 ^talk 01:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Punitive blocks are expressly deprecated, per WP:Block. It follows that preventative blocks should be predicated upon repeated behaviour, with the gamut of warnings being followed. Having said that, "obvious and gross" violations should be met with preventative blocks, but not without the opportunity of the perpetrator stepping back, and cooling down. I agree that in an environment in which some "rough and tumble" may be acceptable, naked abuse just isn't, and, as stated above, the line is different for different editors. Accordingly, I don't see this going anywhere fruitful in the absence of an RFC. Rodhullandemu 01:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    • "Punitive blocks are expressly deprecated, per WP:Block." - cough. Why do you think I suggested changing policy? (BTW when it comes to that phrase people tend to confuse punishment, which serves a policy purpose, with revenge, which does not.) As for an RFC, how about the current Wikipedia:Requests for comment/dispute resolution? Rd232 ^talk 02:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't assume that my psychic powers are up to full speed when the temperature here is below zero, I have neither eaten nor slept properly for several weeks, and really, I'd rather be somewhere else. Otherwise, thanks for the link, but it doesn't address the issues raised here. Rodhullandemu 04:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Civility blocks; never. Doesn't help. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• Incivility complaints are often, though not always, a distraction from what really matters the most: article content. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • There are no rules in wikipedia. It's the wild west of the internet. In the future this time will look antiquated.--scuro (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Our future is ahead of us. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • [responding to Bugs's original comment] Hear hear. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Chaseme, I don't have much problem with the general concept of civility blocks for repeated/egregious offenders, but given your arbitrator's hat I think it's best that you left such blocks to regular admins except possibly in very clear-cut circumstances. Not for any tedious ideological separation-of-powers reasons, but because such disputes tend to find their way to arbcom and it's better to have fewer arbitrators have to recuse. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

  hear, hear. (but you are describing one of the desirable attributes of separation of powers) Can we close this, please? Or can we have an off-topic debate about separation of powers? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Consider it closed, see my hatnote at the top. Many thanks for all the input. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 06:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion might be held at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/dispute resolution. Rd232 ^talk 08:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• It would be nice if there were administrators willing to actually do something to make this a cordial place to edit. Far too many playing games with people and trying to excuse away disruptive users behaviour while their behaviour drives good content contributors away from the encyclopedia. Block often and long.--Crossmr (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• I go more with disruptive myself - rather than incivility as such. People can be bloody rude without being disruptive and vice versa. It's all a matter of context. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this should be posted in edit warring?

Not sure if this is the place to post, but have been having issues with the Fastenal page since I updated it with material that does not reflect well upon this company.

Specifically, a lead mention of a worker satisfaction survey has been repeatedly deleted by User:Muhandes, but also by User talk:Sleighty3, who claims to be employed by this company (see my talk page).

I talked to Muhandes about this on his talk page, but he has recently deleted that. I did not engage Sleighty3 as he claimed to be employed by this company.

• most recent revert

The info. in question should be in lead per NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, as (emphasis my own):

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.

This is a simple dispute between two editors. As I explained in the talk page, which is where this dispute should have been kept, I have already asked for a neutral party in one of the relevant wikiProjects. But it seems Fleetham is lacking the patience and has to run to ANI. So be it, let the big cannons fire. I'd be more than happy if someone here will be willing to have a look as well, though this page is for incidents, not dispute resolution. To set the record straight, I did not "recently delete" the discussion from my talk page, I moved it to the article talk page where it belongs. --Muhandes (talk) 07:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Outside and neutral view Unsourced references to Fastenal operating with "Marxist capital" and the company being known for an "ant supercolony-like" structure, along with unsourced allegations of greenwashing, assertions it only distributes and manufactures as put in by Fleetham aren't very NPOV in my view at all. The "glassdoor.com" survey simply doesn't belong because it gives undue weight to one organization's opinion of a company and in the Reuters article isn't backed up with anything at all beyond the name of the company. I can see how Sleighty3 is very concerned by this article, even if they work there. Furthermore, glassdoor.com seems to be nothing more than a place you can go anonymously and say things about a company you wouldn't tell to the boss (see Fastenal's page on the site), so I am highly dubious that this crowd-sourced site belongs as being cite-able in any way here.

The last edit before Fleetham took over the article is although a bit towards the company's view, still much more neutral than what has been added since January 4, and I highly suggest that an administrator go through this one with a fine toothed comb as I am concerned that Fleetham has issues with article ownership and needs to begin cooperating with other editors to neutralize this writing. However, please read WP:DR; this is not at the state of needing emergency resolution and should be taken to another noticeboard rather than this one. Nate • (chatter) 08:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Additional comment Per the current discussion on Talk:Fastenal#removal of glassdoor.com survey, Fleetham is continuing to insist that this survey be used in the article even though it has no scientific or factual reliability, and he refuses to engage any of the editors about their concerns, including mine about neutrality. A serious look at this article by an administrator is recommended. Nate • (chatter) 08:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Additional additional comment The Glassdoor.com survey of best and worst places to work has been discussed by any number of highly regarded secondary sources, including the NY Times,[1] Wall Street Journal,[2] Chicago Tribune,[3] and LA Times.[4] Thus it can't merely be brushed off as casually as some would have it. (Disclosure: I don't know anything about Fastenal itself.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The major problem with this source though is that glassdoor.com as I see it is a place where users can anonymously say whatever they want about their bosses and their companies without facing any consequences or any kind of legal backing. This isn't someone like a Manpower or Challenger, Gray and Christmas (two companies well known for taking worker satisfaction surveys that are well regarded in the media which cooperate with companies and employees equally), but a site which is the equivalent of what TechTales and Blockbuster Sucks were in the early 2000's; sites which only existed to denigrate their companies and customers, but at a much more massive scale. Also the timing of the surveys in the late month of December don't suggest a serious survey, but just something glassdoor.com's PR firm puts out at the end of the year to fill column space, get a little time on a local newscast which needs to fill a minute, and try to sell their site in a way that minimizes the fact it is a site where people mainly go to complain about their job. A similar article about a site that rates the worst executives and bosses has been deleted for the same concerns in the past, and that is why I find the site very questionable to use, along with the fact it doesn't list why Fastenal should be given the honor beyond '5th most thumbs down rating we received'. But the issues above about the aritcle writing and incredibly unneeded expansion and cruft (including way too much information about their motorsports sponsorship that was attempted to be shortened to 'Fastenal sponsors NASCAR, etc.' which was rejected out of hand by Fleetham after a neutral editor tried to reduce it down) concern me much more. Nate • (chatter) 10:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban User:Sktruth

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

This is a single purpose account focussed on the article on Sante Kimes, convicted con artist and multiple murderer. After two days of discussion with this user all of the sudden a lawyer has filed a request via OTRS to have the article deleted. An amazing coincidence considering that we have had an article on this person since 2003 but Sktruth started editing it just a two days ago and has made about sixty edits to it in that time, mostly removing negative information, which is of course the bulk of the article since Kimes is notable for being a criminal and a murderer. Despite their repeated denials it seems exceedingly obvious that this user has some sort of conflict of interest and may be Mrs. Kimes herself or a member of her legal team. Since they won't admit to the connection I suppose an outright block is difficult to justify, but a topic ban from this article seems more than appropriate. Beeblebrox (talk) 12:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I've totally heard of the "black widow" Sante Kimes (and her son Kenneth Kimes, her partner in crime who took a reporter hostage at one point while in prison, I believe). She is certainly a notable criminal, and there's no reason to delete the article. Topic ban or block: this is one AfD I can't wait to follow. Doc talk 12:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Username of "Sktruth"? Do we need a placard and trumpets to spot a spa COI? We shouldn't topic ban for COI alone, but watch their edits very careful and any shift from NPOV (including a frivolous deletion request) would be enough reason. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Well the math is more like this: obvious coi+trying to whitewash the article+calling a lawyer when that backfired=topic ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time to read long edit histories, but you're not surprising me at all. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Beeblbrox is quite right really, this is gonna happen and perhaps sooner is rather less disruptive than later. Off2riorob (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I tried to help this editor by leaving a welcome template and some comments. This editor did respond back to me but when I went to the talk page I found that my comments, the template and their comments were deleted from their talk page. Reading the history of their talk page says a lot in my opinion. Also, the user name is in violation of usernames. At first when I made comments I thought this editor was making newbie errors but looking at what has gone on since I think this account should be blocked for violations of username and probably violations of COI and other policies. This editor isn't listening to anyone who has tried to help which is of great concern to me. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Any username with "truth" in it should be pre-emptorily blocked; we can then investigate to see if unblocking is advisable. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a bit harsh, but of course they do very often turn out to be users like this who are on a crusade to right some perceived wrong. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I made a comment at the article talk page. Sante Kimes (per the article) will be in prison til the 22nd century, so I doubt she is editing the article herself. Sktruth has alleged a number of factual errors in the article that should be easy to check out; for example, s/he says Sante Kimes was never convicted of arson. Parts of the article were apparently sourced to a sensationalistic-sounding book written by her older son, and that book could well be shaky. If Sktruth is willing to voluntarily stop editing the article for a while (let's say 2 weeks, after which we can see where we are), I can see some value to allowing talkpage participation while other editors check out his/her claims. S/he does seem to know a lot about the case. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the article talk page, they have computers in prison so it is not impossible, and I have already edited the article to reflect that she was not convicted of arson, just accused of it by her son who apparently committed arson and other crimes on her behalf as a young man. I don't think a two week topic ban is going to cut it, a crusader like this cannot be allowed to edit an article after they have gone so far as to call in a lawyer. There's no way that was just a coincidence, the article has been on Wikipedia for seven and a half years, and Kimes' lawyer is suddenly upset about it two days after Sktruth starts trying to scrub it? There is a reason we don't allow legal threats, just because this one came in from OTRS and the user is denying their patently obvious close connection to either Kimes herself or her lawyers doesn't mean we should ignore the obvious. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes there are computers in prison just like there is TV, but it would surprise me if any prisoners have unlimited internet access. I read in the newspaper that a big problem these days is keeping cell phones from being smuggled to prisoners. Letting them online without a lot of monitoring and restrictions would defeat the purpose of the cell phone restrictions. Sante Kimes (even with net access) also doesn't seem like the sort of person who would edit like Sktruth. So while it's theoretically possible that Kimes is Sktruth, I consider it very unlikely. I do agree with the inference that Sktruth is communicating in some way with Kimes's lawyers. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 10:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban - After reading the talk pages involved, the AfD, edit summaries etc. there's really only one possible conclusion, that Sktruth is a SPA here to push a POV and whitewash the article on Kimes. Sktruth is certainly not interested in helping to create a NPOV encyclopedia. Sktruth may or may not be Kimes, or someone close to her, or may just be a groupie, but it hardly matters, the editor's behavior tells the tale. If I'm wrong, and this person is genuinely interested in building an encyclopedia, their behavior post-ban will indicate that, and can be taken into account if lifting the ban in requested in the future, but in the meantime, there's no reason to allow this kind of blatant POV-pushing on behalf of a convicted murderer to continue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban - per Kens reasonings. seems to be a groupie of some kind.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban - Also per Beyond My Kens reasonings. Heiro 15:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban - Just compare this to this. BMK is completely correct, SPA's should not be allowed to engage in such POV-pushing on their target articles. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 17:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Note: User has renamed to WPUCU1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) via CHU. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support restriction against editing the article. For now, I don't see a need to prohibit continued talkpage participation (that can be revisited if it gets too disruptive). The article has gotten better because of it. Dylan620's diff is of course awful, but that looks like an early error, and the person has been interacting politely since then. I left a note at user talk:WPUCU1 asking for clarification about the connection with Kimes's lawyers. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• We appear to have strong support for a topic ban here. I have already informed the (now renamed) user of this as they have so far not participated in this discussion, but I think it would be good if a previously uninvolved admin made a formal statement to them informing them of the topic ban, so as to make it clear this is a community decision and not a personal vendetta. I suppose this should also be listed at WP:RESTRICT#Placed by the Wikipedia community. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to report this but: Over the course of our conversation I mentioned the highly questionable nature of the "Sante Kimes Foundation for the Wrongfully Convicted" and noted that linking to their Facebook page was probably not appropriate. Lo and behold, as of today they suddenly have an official website and another WP:SPA, User:Jfaia is repeatedly linking it to the article. Without commenting on the validity of the link, does anyone else hear the sound of quacking? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

SPI filed. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I have asked User:Stifle (who opened the AfD in response to the OTRS request that Kimes's attorneys sent) to check with the attorneys whether that "official site" really is one. If the attorneys confirm it then I suppose we should leave it in the article. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't. We are under no obligation to provide promotional links to this kind of campaign when there is no public controversy about the convictions. If there was widespread concern about a miscarriage of justice, noted in reliable sources, than I would say that a NPOV would require a link to a legitimate campiagn for justice, but that is not the case, this is simply a career criminal convicted for their crimes trying the game the system. The link should stay out whether it's legitimate or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Ken, our general practice is to include links to official sites of all subjects that have them as far as I know. We have links to some very obnoxious sites like that of Stormfront for that reason. I could make a case for changing the practice on general principles, but I don't see Kimes as being exceptional (unlike Stormfront, I doubt the link actually brings any benefit to her cause). To Jfaia: we're not obligated to include the link. The guideline just says how we usually handle such links in the absence of special circumstances. If there's consensus that we should leave it out, then we can leave it out. The article talk page is the usual place to discuss such things though. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 01:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken Wikipedia guideline: Official links "An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following:

1.The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.
2.The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.
Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. These links are exempt from the links normally to be avoided, but they are not exempt from the restrictions on linking. For example, although links to websites that require readers to register or pay to view content are normally not acceptable in the External links section, such a link may be included when it is an official website for the subject.

Official links are still subject to standard formatting requirements, such as rich media labeling and not placing links in the text of the article. When an official website is used as a source to verify a self-published statement in the article text, it should be formatted like any other reference used in the article.[4] Official websites may be included in some infoboxes, and by convention are listed first in the External links section. Use of the template [http:// Official website] is optional.

No official link exists for many articles. "Fansites", including everything from websites run by fans of a musician to a charitable organization supporting patients with a disease, even if they are endorsed or authorized by the subject, are not considered official websites because the subject of the article is unable to control the information being presented. Links to websites that are not considered official websites may still be justifiable under other sections of this guideline, e.g., Links to consider #4." --Jfaia (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

REFER TO WP GUIDELINE
"What should be linked" 1.Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. --Jfaia (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a promotional website and your organization has no inherent right to have your website linked here in the absence of any public controversy about the conviction of the career criminal who is the subject of the article in question. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Is the quaking getting deafening in here? How is that SPI going so far? 2 SPA's showing up in a matter days pushing the same agenda is surely not a coincidence? Heiro 01:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Website in question is not an advertisement, it is the OFFICIAL website of the subject. WP GUIDELINE: Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself.--Jfaia (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The website is promotional if consensus says it is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Considering the website seems to have been set up to specifically get around our rules on WP:VERIFY, WP:COI, WP:SOAPBOX, and who knows what else, per WP:IGNORE(one of our 5 pillars of editing here) we do not have to include a link to any site from here, official or not. Heiro 02:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Even if it is, in fact, the convict's "official" website, be it 10 years old or 10 hours old, it contains no new or useful information. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

For further info on Sktruth/Jfaia, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WPUCU1. I don't understand why that character is still being allowed to edit, but maybe the admins are feeling generous lately. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion of blocking Jfaia, an obnoxious SPA and likely sockpuppet. I'd keep WPUCU1 unblocked for the time being. Jfaia: it's not doing you any good to lecture about policy to participants of this thread. They are all WP dispute resolution veterans who understand policy a lot better than you do. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I blocked User:Jfaia, because of her being an obvious sockpuppet, and because her repeated copying of whole sections of policy was irritating me. But mostly because of the 'obvious sockpuppet' thing. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm no internet geek, so I have to ask a totally ignoranimous question: Is it possible to easily determine when a website was created? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm no tech geek, but the Facebook page seems to indicate that the web site is brand new. Also, they have 10 'friends.' I know household pets with larger followings than that. Notice also the complete lack of any names or contact information in either place- a real 'official' web site wouldn't try to hide who was making it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, don't be so harsh. It's every bit as real as this one:[5] (Or maybe NOT, now that I think of it.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Aaaand the latest sock is Dogma152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

CU confirms all and a few more. Let the blocking begin, lol. Heiro 03:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I've asked Stifle to ask the lawyers to call off the socking. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you could ask for it via the "official website"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• The copyright on the page is 2011, and it never showed up until yesterday in all the extensive searching I have been doing while improving the article. It's pretty clear that it was created specifically to circumvent policy after I spoke to the user about the advisability of linking to the Facebook page it mimics. The urge to defraud and lie is hard for a con to suppress, even after they have failed spectacularly at it. At one point Kimes was actually quite wealthy and could simply have "gone straight" and lived the good life as the wife of a tycoon in Hawaii had she had the desire and/or self control. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Subject's official website being remove

According to Wikipedia's guidelines, an article's subject's official website should be linked on the article. This is not being followed with the Sante Kimes article.
Subject's official website has been removed without cause, other than by biased opinion of the editors. Which say "no legitimate reason to link to this site, we're not here to help promote attempts by convicted criminals to game the system" written by Beyond My Ken this is obviously a bias opinion of the editor.

The WP guideline for official websites is as follows:

"An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following:

1.The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.
2.The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. These links are exempt from the links normally to be avoided, but they are not exempt from the restrictions on linking. For example, although links to websites that require readers to register or pay to view content are normally not acceptable in the External links section, such a link may be included when it is an official website for the subject.

Official links are still subject to standard formatting requirements, such as rich media labeling and not placing links in the text of the article. When an official website is used as a source to verify a self-published statement in the article text, it should be formatted like any other reference used in the article.[4] Official websites may be included in some infoboxes, and by convention are listed first in the External links section.

No official link exists for many articles. "Fansites", including everything from websites run by fans of a musician to a charitable organization supporting patients with a disease, even if they are endorsed or authorized by the subject, are not considered official websites because the subject of the article is unable to control the information being presented. Links to websites that are not considered official websites may still be justifiable under other sections of this guideline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawtn (talk • contribs) 02:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

How can a convicted felon have an 'official website'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

While you single out one editor, it appears that three different editors and a bot have removed your attempted addition. This is a simple content dispute, and not anything an administrator can resolve for you. It is being discussed on the talk page, and should not be reinserted lacking consensus to do so. Resolute 02:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hawtn neglects to mention that (s)he was blocked for abuse of multiple accounts earlier today. I'm not sure who the puppeteer is, but I have blocked this account also for block evasion. —C.Fred (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

What I don't get is that the presumed sockmaster, Sktruth, is not even blocked. Maybe someone should remedy that - and maybe block the underlying IP as well? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong is working on the check-user right now. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Is it "sweeps" week? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Current state of play

All CU-confirmed socks indef blocked, master account blocked for a week for socking, article semi'd. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Since this user will be unblocked in a week I still think it would be a good idea for someone besides me (or I guess my fellow abusive admin Beyond My Ken) to formally notify her of the topic ban which we achieved a fairly strong consensus for above, and to log the ban at WP:RESTRICT. Any takers? Beeblebrox (talk) 09:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Correction: I am not now, nor have I ever been, an admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I still support it, and think the person should consider themselves lucky to still receive that and not an indefinite block or full site ban for some of their shenanigans in the last few days. Heiro 09:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think somebody forgot to actually perform the one-week block. But I don't see why we should restrict it to just a week anyway, nor why we would want to do merely a topic ban. This user kept creating new sockpuppets after they had been notified of the SPI and even after they had had the gall of defending themselves on that SPI. I've indef-blocked Sktruth (talk · contribs) now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Their renamed acct is User:WPUCU1 and it is set with a one week expiration of its block, think thats what Beeblebrox was referring to. Heiro 09:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, sorry, I hadn't noticed they were now treating WPUCU1 as the master account. Sktruth was the one that had somehow escaped blocking. But I still propose we should raise the week block to indef, for blatant lying and continued socking while negotiating the sockpuppeting charge and promising to behave better. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't object, but the community may want to extend them some AGF in other areas of the Pedia than this after a long enough block for it to settle in that what they did was unacceptable and a topic ban on this particular subject. Seems to happen that way alot. Heiro 09:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Coffin nails User:Getoffwelfareandgetajob, who trolled my talk page, now blocked as a sock of this user. As the blocking admin is also a CU I would assume that was used to confirm. Now it is really, really time to indef block this user. Beeblebrox (talk) 10:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't do the block, but  Confirmed yes. Also Needhelpplease1 (talk · contribs) - Alison ^❤ 10:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess I should have known you didn't do the block since I did it. It was very gracious of you not to rub my nose in it. Ironically, I had assumed it was the "angry ip" from two threads down this very page. Beeblebrox (talk) 10:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Indef-blocked. I was the admin who unblocked this user three days ago on promises of good behaviour. S/he had a point initially; the article was in very bad shape, and has been much improved as a result of all this; but the sockpuppetry and trolling has become quite unacceptable and this latest sock and personal attack is the last straw. I have extended the block on the master account WPUCU1 (talk) to indefinite. JohnCD (talk) 11:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"S/he had a point initially;" No, not really, because her point wasn't that it was a bad article which needed to be improved, her point was that it was an article which needed to be skewed in a way that whitwashed Kines. Her goals and our goals overlapped momentarily, but very quickly diverged, which is why we gain very little from letting SPA's roam free. Unlike the Anglo-Saxon justice system, which posits that some version of truth will emerge from a battle between two advocates, we cannot be assured that every SPA will have an anti-SPA, or even that a SPA's activities will be noticed by unbiased editors, so our articles are more likely to be warped and unbalanced by the Sktruths out there then they are to be helped by the provocation. SPAs and paid editors are a much more serious problem to the project than unsourced BLPs, or improperly justified non-free images, or some of the other topics which have gripped the moral panic crowd. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a funny thing, the harder I worked to improve the article, the more they screamed "bias" at me. You can't say we didn't try, this person, whoever they are, didn't want the truth, they wanted to broadcast the fact that Kimes claims to be innocent of the 100+ charges she was convicted on. Ironically, I also added that information, which was lacking, to the article and summarized the paranoid ranting statement she directed at the court during the sentencing phase of the Silverman trial, including her accusations that it was an elaborate frame-up, but apparently that was not enough. Whenever I get a message that nasty on my talk page I just know I did something right. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

89.100.20.87

I'd like a review of whether I had been handling the situation with the talk page of 89.100.20.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) properly, as well as any opinions on what should be done next with the IP's incomprehensible demand of, "I want my IP REMOVED NOW! ... NOW! REMOVE IT FROM YOUR SITE NOW! YOU DAMNED THIEVES!" Blanking? Blocking? Blocking and disable talk access? Thoughts are appreciated. --Nlu (talk) 03:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The IP has apparently now created an user account (Gherth5vdsf (talk · contribs)) and continues to "demand" the same. --Nlu (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me try to reason with them... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

With this [6] and [7], do we really need them? Heiro 03:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It ring of deliberate trolling IMHO The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

What I thought as well, maybe indef and be done? Heiro 03:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The IP user could have been blocked for that back in December.

It's entirely possible that say this new user comes in, on an IP address that they just got due to router reboots that was previously assigned to a troublemaker and had a bunch of warnings on its talk page, sees the warnings, doesn't understand anything about how IPs work or what's going on, and freaks out. In this case, the new user isn't necessarily associated with the prior behavior at all. They just need to have the situation explained to them and for them to be treated decently now.

If it is the same person, and they continue that behavior, then all bets are off and their likely lifetime here is short. But there's no reason to assume that at the moment. AGF.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Its feasible indeed, but using Nigger in repsonse to Beeblebrox's explanation really? oops old diff The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems like someone who is just yelling for the sake of yelling to me. Racism, empty, illogical threats, not one constructive edit... I added a {{sharedip}} notice to the older talk page since it has now apparently rotated. We could maybe collapse the old stuff for readability as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a dynamic IP so if the user waits a while s/he will have a different IP adress and if s/he does not edit from that one ... problem solved. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 04:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

You should first start by not restoring the blanking of the warnings on the talk page. The user has a right to blank their talk page under WP:BLANKING. And since none of the talk page's content falls under one of the very limited exceptions, you are actually violating the talk page policy by restoring them. —Farix (t | c) 11:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I've never been clear on if that applies equally to a shared ip talk page. It's not "your" talk page if the next time you log in you are suddenly on another ip. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Shared IPs can remove the block notices/warnings. However, the "Shared IP" template should never be removed. Users simply blanking the page should be reverted. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The only portion that can be restored is the Shared IP notice. However, even Dynamic IPs are allowed to remove warnings form the talk pages of their IP, even if they were not the original target of the notice. Therefore, Beeblebrox, I recommend that you restore the talk page to when the IP last blanked it you engaged in an edit war over the warnings, then reapply the Shared IP noticed. —Farix (t | c) 23:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The IP editor seems to want to be blocked: [8], [9], [10] JoeSperrazza (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

If he's causing this much bullshit, maybe we should block him for disruption.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Somebody want to block this troll? I know I do. They've moved on to calling another user a "cunt"[11] and adding insults to pages related to me [12][13], apparently irritated that I don't always capitalize the term "ip." In order to avoid the appearance of a "revenge block" I suggest somebody other than me apply a nice, long block to this ip. Note the lack of a single positive contribution and the fact that the last block was for one month. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

@ Farix: Please look again at the edit history of the talk page and re-examine your accusation that I edit warred in this situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"Note the lack of a single positive contribution and the fact that the last block was for one month. ". Also note that the IP appears to be static, not dynamic (both by host name and, more significantly, that it is not listed in any of the Dynamic IP blocklists). JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Trolling of sandbox

Could use some suggestions on dealing with an IP hopping troll that repeatedly posts to the Wikipedia:Sandbox, claiming in the edit summary "Administrative Edit - Please don't revert", and claiming the sandbox to be closed for technical reasons, and that users should instead experiment on other pages - also using a fake signature on the notice. example (one of many). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment): This is definitely a case of WP:RBI. I would start at a week. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Would a rangeblock work here? I am not completely sure how they work, but it looks possible. Airplaneman ✈ 06:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a fairly large range - but a scan shows no other recent users, so a short-term range block may work to discourage them for now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like they've gotten bored. If they return under the same range, a short rangeblock sounds good. Airplaneman ✈ 07:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I had already done the short-term range block after my post above; sorry, I should have mentioned that I was implementing it. --- Barek (talk) - 17:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I can do a couple of rangeblocks there, but not much longer than what Barek originally had, though. –MuZemike 07:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Just came across 120.17.248.8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and the affiliated Tiderols (talk · contribs). Look like we should not allow the latter to just change their user name. Favonian (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

And 120.17.232.189 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Rangeblockers to the rescue! Favonian (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks like no additional disruption in almost two hours from the two ranges involved. If it starts again, can investigate range blocks again at that point. Correction: It looks like another admin re-applied the range blocks already about two hours ago. --- Barek (talk) - 00:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Semi-automated controversial edits with alternate account

I am requesting that User:Plastikspork's alternate account User:Plasticspork be blocked from editing. Although it is a known alternate account, Plastikspork is using it to make 1000s of semi-automated edits before and after he/she learned that the edits were controversial. This use is clearly against the policy of using legitimate alternate accounts.

On January 312, 2011 I posted a question about whether his bot had been approved for 27,000 edits he appeared to be planning to undertake.[14] I noticed that his bot was not making the edits and crossed out my question. He/she and User:Bob the Wikipedian began a discussion in the thread I started about Plastikspork using semi-automated edits to make the 5000 or so edits carried out thus far. Plastikspork continued making the controversial edits with his alternate account from the time I asked about, without notifying me that he was doing so.

He/she used the account to evade my scrutiny of his/her edits. Therefore, this is not a legitimate use of an alternate account and the alternate account should be blocked. He/she could have simply posted a link to the alternate account to show that is where the editing was being done, but instead, acted in a deceptive manner about the account, not coming clean that that was how he/she was editing. And he/she is continuing the edits in spite of the controversy about them. --Kleopatra (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I suppose as a bearer of evidence, be it for or against, I should bring that to the floor. More information regarding this situation may be found at Template talk:Taxobox#RfC 2. Please have a look at it before making any judgment here, as it explains the nature of this case. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, this is another point about these edits. They appear to require an RfBA, and, under bot guidelines, the bot task would probably not be approved. 27,000 edits which do not improve or change an article do nothing. --Kleopatra (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

And also Wikipedia:Bot requests#Taxobox maintenance, one-time. Thanks for reviewing these related discussions. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

(Not a specific reply) In light of Kleopatra's question atWP:BOTN about whether a RfBA would be be needed for such a task, I would like to clarify that per bot policy, number of edits per se does not require one to file for a RfBA. The qualifying criterion for a RfBA is rate of edits, as a measure of whether care and attention is being paid to every edit. I haven't looked at the specific case here but I thought I'd point out that 5,000 edits alone does not require a RfBA; 5000 edits in 24 hours does. Of course, that does not mean that PS is in the right here, only that he is not necessarily in the wrong on this particular issue. Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 20:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That makes no sense at all. A slow-moving bot pays no more care and attention to its edits than a fast-moving one. Approval should be required regardless of the bot's edit speed. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is about where, in a mass-edit, the line is drawn between RfBA and regular editor AWB. The OP notes that PS did not reveal that their "AWB-account" did the job. To be clear: User:Plasticspork has two extra accounts: User:Plasticbot (a bot) and User:Plastikspork. Both extra accounts have AWB permission. Probably there is an accepted reason PS does not reveal the Plasticspork ("AWB") account. If so, then PS should prevent confusion some other way -- but preventing should be done. If there is no reason, e.g. because the account is allowed for "maintenance", then the second [third] account should be clearly linked to the main account. Either way, PS is failing. One of the effects of this hiding is that at least one user got lost is researching what was going on [15], where to state controversiality at all, and in the process loosing trust in admins ability for self-regulation [16],and worse [17]. -DePiep (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

My alternate accounts are both disclosed on my userpage, they are "SporkBot" and "Plasticspork". As far as I can tell, "Plasticbot" is run by a different user. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I found them. -DePiep (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Paraphrasing from a post on my talk page. This seems to be a big misunderstanding. First, the reason why I didn't disclose anything to Kleopatra is that Kleopatra "retired" hours after posting to my talk page. So, I assumed Kleopatra was no longer watching my page, or editing on WP. Second, the reason why the edit history is split to an alternate account is to limit the possible damage done by that account, and to isolate the semi-automated/AWB edits from my normal editing. The existence of this alternate account is disclosed on my user page. Third, as soon as I became aware that the task was controversial, I stopped. I was under the impression that this was more than a cosmetic change, and that there was some consensus for this change. This is the first time I have had any objections to my cleanup work. Sorry for the misunderstanding, and I do plan to file a formal request for bot approval if there is consensus from the RFC. FYI, the edit rate was roughly four edits a minute, which was somewhat tedious, but not so bad since it just amounted to checking the diffs, and pressing a button to commit. Let me know if I can answer any other questions. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

So you embarked upon 100 hrs of AWB edit checking? And the thought of using a bot did not pop up? First of all, it was a botrequest. Curious. -DePiep (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think I was going to be the only one, which is why I said "help with this task" rather than "handle this request". Given the chance to respond again, I would certainly do things differently. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure you did not create an auto-save gadget for AWB? Well, Kleopatra added this here below. Considering your actions, the timeline, and the behaviour, I see this: at every moment of choice you passed, you choose the evasive option. And that is what your comments on this say too. I won't criticize these individual moments here. But the general line is there: any editor is supposed to deserve good faith , when working in good faith. On top of this, an experienced user, an admin & bot owner at that, should know this by heart & intuition (is why I don't link to policies &tc, right?). That is missing here, PS.

(Disclosure: I am here because I was surprised that PS wrote ... in a "semi-automatic" [quotes - sic] mode using my AWB account' [18] -- wow, I didn't know such an account existed --, and an editor complaining about non-responsiveness by admins).

Proposal (Well, maybe the outcome could be a block, but more or less PS has admitted it should not have gone this way). Plastikspork, I suggest this solution: could you come clear about your actions (making it more easy easy to AGF), and step forward to Kleopatra to invite them back from retirement. Kleo is not that far away, we know. -DePiep (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I posted my initial concerns about the edits at 7:54 am, 31 January 2011, last Monday (2 days ago) (UTC−7).[19] You had already started editing with your alternate account at this time.[20] You made at least 1000 additional edits with your alternate account after I posted my concerns, and did not disclose your alternate account on the bot request board.

I posted an additional concern about the task at 10:16 pm, 31 January 2011, last Monday (2 days ago) (UTC−7). You were editing with your alternate account at these times.

I posted another concern about the edits at 10:19 pm, 31 January 2011, last Monday;[21] your last edit by the alternate account was at 17:07, 1 February 2011.[22]

I made 2 posts at the bot request board indicating my concern and two posts on your talk page indicating my concerns and that I was attempting to scrutinize any edits your bot was making. Instead of notifying me that your alternate account was making the edits instead of your bot, you continued to edit and made more than a thousand edits with your alternate account knowing that I considered the edits controversial. --Kleopatra (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Plastikspork, can you declare that you did not use any extra automation when doing the AWB edits? -DePiep (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Bob the Wikipedian

New subthread, splicing for User:Bob the Wikipedian. Another disturbing line of behaviour in this is by BtW (of admin priesthood). Here above they wrote being bearer of evidence to create "perspective" -- BtW you were in the middle of the happening when it happened, not an outsider witness. Elsewhere (not here) you claimed some sort of responsibility off PS's shoulders [23], away from manual AWB-saving?. In that same post, you introduced an after the fact RfC to create "some level of community approval", while BtW started the bot request we are talking about (where Kleo responded along the line: "well, I'll see that RfBA when it happens"). I state that BtW (an admin) should have the intuition and AGF state of mind to prevent this derailing. BtW should have actively prevented this, they knew it was controversial. There were multiple moments BtW could have acted. On top of this, BtW is rudely dismissive to an editor when pointed to this behaviour ("I half-expected the scandal would reach this far", and "... your feelings toward administrators ..." --no, it is about admin's behaviour, BtW). The edit summary in this final link was "adios" -- which proves bad faith. I state that BtW knowingly evaded policy, and was uncivil to an AGF editor.
I support the general question Kleo puts forward in this case: why are admins treated different towards policies? Any non-admin with such behavior (including PS, ping-pong is a tango sports) would have been reverted first, before talking. At least. -DePiep (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

DePiep, I highly encourage you to investigate the discussions at Template talk:Taxobox, Template talk:Automatic taxobox, and then decide who is acting rashly. I think it's safe to say by now that this is a personal attack from Kleopatra which she has extended toward Plastikspork. This personal attack seems to have begun months ago during the development of {{automatic taxobox}} and is now being unleashed at a much wider degree than before. Having stated this, yes, I was aware that Kleopatra objected, but never once in the history of my knowing her has she ever supported anything I've done, even though those around me do.

On a side note, but probably an important side note, I've got a ton of homework at the moment and won't be able to say much without cutting into that until tomorrow evening (I'm on UTC-6). Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I was not trying to appear as an uninvolved party; in fact, I was trying not to create bias in the discussion but merely trying to be helpful in linking to the relevant discussions. Also, I'd like to know how "adios" is bad faith...I say adios in ending conversation all the time, and that was my response to her saying she was leaving. If I'm not mistaken, the word has its etymology somewhere along the lines of "God bless", so I'm quite confused as to how that's rude. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This thing began with the bot request by BtW (Jan 30, 23:56 UTC). Nowhere in the subsequent branching threads I have found a post by Kleo that would require outside correction. Also, BtW here also does not provide such an edit. Now BtW invokes previous discussions. But apart from cumulative warnings etc, fueds do not weigh in disputes. Even worse, surprisingly BtW introduces them as if they matter to (excuse for ) current behaviour. To me, if they are unresolved disputes, this is not the way to resolve them. No way they are a pass to go ahead undiscussed. And BtW admissed a dispute by the late introduction of RfC. Simply: if Kleo's contribution was that negative, why not go for RfBA from the start? Why could you not have get the outcome you'd propose?

I am with Kleo on this point: I do not expect superior behaviour from admins. I only expect that they apply the same rules for themselves, as they do for other editors. -DePiep (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"I state that BtW knowingly evaded policy, and was uncivil to an AGF editor." Accidentally, I've been watching this WP:DRAMA from aside, and I cannot possibly agree that Kleopatra was an AGF editor. On the contrary, she has exhibited everything but good faith. I don't know the whole history between herself and BtW, but all I saw from her side in last 3 days was just complaining that the policy is not followed and screaming administrator abuse in various forums. I would have a greater level of sympathy if the edits in question somehow had an adverse effect on her own work, but all I saw was just complaining for complaining's sake. May I remind everyone on WP:BURO and WP:IAR? And you aren't helping much, DePiep, with such inquisitory attitude. While I will agree that Plastikspork blew the procedure and didn't follow the bot policy to the letter, I don't see any particular harm having been done so far, except for the feelings of all involved.

My suggestion is as follows: slap two WP:TROUTs to Plastikspork, one for BtW and Kleopatra each, then let the RfC about the edits finish; depending on the outcome, complete the job or revert Plasticspork's edits. As far as I can tell, there was no rush to perform these edits, which would justify the speed in which they were executed. Also, there was no harm being done to the encyclopedia. No such user (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I do see the harm in what I've been complaining about all along. Wikipedia is not many things, but it's also not a place where admins have an exclusive right to edit fully protected templates:editing of fully protected pages requires community consensus for substantive edits. Bob has now told me that I, too, could edit the template as much as I want if I increased my access rights by gaining adminship like he did.[24]

This is not what full protection is for: granting edit rights to admins that non-admins don't have. And it's not the reason for fully protecting this template: to limit editing to admins. The point is to limit editing of the template due to the number of articles it is on and the potential damage that bad edits could cause. Editing articles is the primary purpose of editing wikipedia. There are many excellent editors who aren't admins. These editors may have excellent template-editing skills and insights into good/bad edits to fully protected templates. They should be consulted by gaining consensus as the policy requires.

Alternative accounts have rules. An experienced admin who is also a bot operator should know these rules. One of the policies is that you should not use the alternative account to avoid scrutiny. And, PS not only did avoid scrutiny, he made over a 1000 edits for hours after I first made a comment about the edits, indicating there was controversy. In addition, knowing that I was scrutinizing the edits, in addition to moving forward making them in spite of the controversy, he continued to make them with his alternate account without stating that that was what he was doing. He had plenty of opportunities to disclose his alternate account edits or stop editing. He was signed in on both this alternate and main account while editing, so he had plenty of access to his watch list to see my posts. He responded to Bob about the editing after I had posted my concerns. What good faith should I assume when an editor uses an alternate account to avoid scrutiny of controversial semi-automated edits rather than his bot or main account, both of which I am obviously scrutinizing? --Kleopatra (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Re No such user. Tellingly, you provided no diffs to illustrate the "shouting" or "everything but good faith" and such. My reading (of the same) is that Kleo kept posting seriously and to the point; any frustration showing is no reason for any editor to become dismissive or rude. And of course, one does not need to be hindered 'in one's own work' to complain. The sequence is clear: in the Botrequest Kleo noted an objection, which was circumvented at first and later acknowledged by BtW/PS. If there were other arguments, they could have been put forward. What I would propose is that BtW (this subsection) acknowledges their mistakes. Trouts just get smelly. Without some change it would just become a fish slapping dance. -DePiep (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

gaming adverts

Resolved

 – Spam deleted and Anon IP welcomed - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

hello could someone look at my messages page, as someone keeps filling it with solicitations for online gaming, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.251.24 (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I blocked the user as well, as it's clear that it was some sort of automated spam username. First posts were within seconds of registration, so yeah. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

 IP blocked -- Luk ^talk 13:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

confirmation/second-guessing a block I made

Resolved

Hey admins,

I blocked Duke2323 (talk · contribs) after their first edit, as it looked very WP:DUCK to me: it's similar to the username they edited on (Duke53 (talk · contribs), no stranger in these parts), and it was 10 minutes after an identical edit by another SPA-type user (1, 2).

Another user (who I respect), quite rightly called me out for the quick block. So I'm bringing it here- I'm looking for feedback. Obviously, this means I won't wheel-war if someone wants to overturn my block.

I'm not posting ANI-notice to Duke2323; if it's a new editor, they shouldn't have to figure out the machinations involved with ANI, especially as a blocked user. tedder (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed the following are the same:

Duke2323 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

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

Gamefun (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) TNXMan 18:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks- I didn't mean to fish for it, but it certainly resolves any guilt I had about the quick block. tedder (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice work, Tedder, right up until the "no stranger in these parts" dig. Totally unnecessary, but not unexpected. Stevie Wonder could have seen the sockpuppet thing happening here, but I read this just the other day: [25]"The allegations of sockpuppets or meatpuppets should and can safely be ignored. They are meaningless and unhelpful.". Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious if the possibility exists that these are in fact not sockpuppets but different accounts using the same (school) IP address? I agree, though, that it looks a lot like socks. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Look at the contribs of all 3, which are all 2 or 3 each. 3 new accts, with few edits, make edits to overlapping pages, in several cases identical edits, none that I could see were constructive. It is either a.)1 person with multiple vandal accts or b.)if three separate people on 1 IP, they were obviously working together as meat puppets to troll and vandalize. Either way, does it matter? Either explanation is grounds for blocking, which has been done, case closed. Heiro 01:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Potential legal threat

Jaoostudios (talk · contribs) Does this edit summary constitute a legal threat [26]? (in addition to the blatant COI and username violations) Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The user has been notified of this discussion [27] Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that "we removed it for legal reasons" isn't a threat as such. As you say, there is an obvious COI problem though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'm going with "yes" and have blocked this editor. --John (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Good block. Definitely qualifies as a legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

216.161.176.112 returns

IP address 216.161.176.112 (Gilbert Public Schools in Arizona) is at it again with some weird vandalism to Mesquite High School (Gilbert, Arizona), which is one of that district's schools. Perhaps an extended block is needed now? He's the only active vandal to that page. Raymie (t • c) 20:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. In the future, please report at WP:AIV. Nakon 20:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked user Marknutley claiming a copyright violation.

See here: User_talk:Marknutley#Copyright_Violation. Mark says that an article he wrote for the Mises Wiki has been copied to Wikipedia without attribution. I'm not sure where or how this should be handled. Can anyone help? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted the article as an obvious copyvio. Nakon 21:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I got into a delete-edit conflict with Nakon. Trying to figure this out, original is under CC-BY-3.0; I added

This article's content at the time of its creation originated from this page at the Mises Wiki and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 according to the Mises Wiki copyright policy.

but it got deleted at the same time. :P /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes , it is CC3 but we really are not here to do that, are we? we primarily write our own articles, and reference them ourselves and as this is connected to an editor in conflict with this project it appears more disruptive to the project to keep it than beneficial to keep it. . Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It's legally usable, and if the page is NPOV, well-sourced, etc. then it should be fine to use. There've been similar discussions before and it's AFAIK been up to a case-by-case basis; if consensus is to use a page and not apply CSD G5, then so be it. Copyright violation is incorrect, though, once attribution has been added. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, CC3 can be imported into CC-By-SA. See [28]. As long as licensing requirements are met, we can have it, other issues notwithstanding. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

If it were to be reinstated, I'd be inclined to AfD it as a POV-fork on left wing terrorism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is clearly no hurry to cut and copy content to enwikipedia from other wikis without consensus and discussion, and some editorial investigation of the content, especially imo when a blocked user who has been refused his unblock request claims authorship. Off2riorob (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both comments above. The article contents on the Mises wiki smell strongly of original synthesis to me, even though there is plenty of factual information as well. There's no need to insist on grabbing off-site content when it's that far away from being usable on Wikipedia. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Gavia immer. TFD (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Restore the page. It wasn't a copyvio and should have never been speedied. Then if needed, it can be nominated for deletion where a proper discussion on its suitability in Wikipedia can take place. -Atmoz (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Um, it was a cut n paste without attribution from what looks like nutley's personal wiki. That's about as clear of a copyvio as one can get. Tarc (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Attribution was actually added just before deletion. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Tendentious editor

Unresolved

User1389 (talk · contribs) is continuously making disruptive edits in regards to the flag used by the Kingdom of Serbia. Ironically he does provide a source for his reasoning in the summary, but that source completely contradicts his point and only validates my own. I have brought up these points on his talk page, but so far he has completely ignored any communication and prefers to conduct an edit war, as follows: [29],[30],[31],[32] to list a few. This is also the case on the List of national mottos, where I've quite clearly tried [33],[34] to inform him that Serbia does not have an official motto, i.e. not sanctioned by the government, I have even asked him to provide a source at least, which he has still not provided. To date he ignores this and inserts a motto anyways. Buttons (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

(tweaked user link) --Mirokado (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but doesn't this text:

"An article in the bimonthly political magazine Srpska Rec (undated, probably from December 2001) explains how the working group presented their proposal for the new symbols of Serbia on 23 November 2001. The working group decided to propose the readoption of the 1882 symbols - the plain tricolour as the national flag, the tricolour with coat of arms as the state flag, the coat of arms from the Obrenović dynasty period and the anthem Bože pravde, also from 1882."

from the source support his contention the new flag is the same as the 1882 flag? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I've protected the page for a day to stop the edit war. You're both 3RR. I have also left a notice on User 1389's talkpage informing him of this discussion.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Torchiest, the national flag used during the Kingdom of Serbia (1882-1918) was the plain tricolour as is supported here, same as it was during the Principality of Serbia before it. The problem lies in User1389's insistence on using the civil flag in its place for some reason, even using the same source to ironically try and justify their point. I've pointed this fact out to them several times with absolutely zero cooperation or communication on the matter. Buttons (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of dubious, improperly sourced, unencyclopedic material

Atechers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly added material ([35],[36],[37]) to Advanced Technologies Academy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) which is dubious in origin, apparently being transcluded from a privately-operated Web page. The material is unencyclopedic in nature, taking the form of a trivia list. If I attempt to remove the material again I will violate WP:3RR. I do intend to warn the user regarding the apparent conflict of interest and possible username policy issues. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

They have not edited for over 30 minutes; perhaps the warnings are starting to sink in? --Diannaa ^(Talk) 00:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

That or their other activities[38] are getting them more noticed than they'd like. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

User:NYScholar back with new IP address.

I am sorry to have to report that this banned user appears to have returned again one day after the most recent IP block, this time as 69.205.77.198 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot). Previous discussions on this at [39], [40], [41]. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

NYScholar, just lay off for a while, ok? When a banned editor quietly starts making good edits that don't repeat the conduct that led to the ban, other editors (per WP:IAR) will often decide to look the other way and not notice the ban evasion. But you can't be in their face about it, such as getting into any sort of conflict, or coming back to the same article 1 day after getting blocked. Better yet, why don't you edit Wikibooks for a while? It doesn't have a book about Pinter at the moment. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Harold Pinter now semi-protected 3 days. If necessary, we may need to semi-protect the talk page or escalate the protection on the article page to full. –MuZemike 02:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

(Pause) Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editor at Chicago

For over a month now, a user Verygentle1969 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly tried to add unsourced information in the article. The information being added is this. There was a discussion in the talk page and no consensus was reach to keep the information added. Verygentle1969 has been persistently adding trying to re-add the information despite being asked not to and being reverted by multiple editors. Any form of communication seems to be ignored as they have made no attempts to explain why their edit should be kept or participate in the discussion. Instead, he/she has continued to re-add the information under the IP, 204.140.189.253 (talk · contribs). They were given a final warning for making this edit. A little while after, they reinstated the edit despite being given a final warning and multiple warnings prior to that warning. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Verygentle1969 and IP notified. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You may as well keep that Forbes financial information in the article; it's true. The editor was wrong to not source them, but there's no point in not adding the information if it's true. I can't pull anything up for the inland city part, though I'd agree that this fits under trivia information. m.o.p 02:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Eloc, since you are an admin, what are you trying to get out of this post? CTJF83 03:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't do anything since I'm involved and I feel that out of the concern of other editors, the issue should be raised. The inland city part is the bit of information that's being rejected. It doesn't appear to be true as said in the talk page. In terms of a city population as in city proper (I am assuming this as metropolitan areas, agglomerations, etc. do not serve as capitals) Chicago is not largest inland city. For example, the city of Ahmedabad has more people within its city limits than Chicago does and it does not serve as a provincial capital and is an inland city. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, ok, guess you can't do anything if you are involved. CTJF83 03:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Not only has the editor been persisting in this for a long time, the info he's trying to post is flat-out wrong. Chicago is in no way "landlocked". It's the largest American city on the Great Lakes, unless the Great Lakes have evaporated and no one told us about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's like saying Cairo, Illinois is landlocked because it's surrounded completely by levees, though it borders on both the Mississippi and Ohio rivers. But then again, there is not much reason to go to Cairo (though it's probably right now a safer place to be in than Cairo, Egypt). –MuZemike 09:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been there, Cairo Egypt might be safer, lol. Heiro 09:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard of the concept of "landlocked" being applied to cities at all. It's a concept that applies to countries, not cities. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

User Vidboy10

This user continues to chgange the infobox in the article 2011 Egyptian protests I reverted the first time stating to take it to the talk page as the issue of a military infobox had been discussed there but the same user again changed it a 2nd time, a warning was given on user's talk page and I changed it back a 2nd time when he changed it back a 3rd time going against 3RR. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You never mentioned my name in the talk page nor acknowledged that i should stop reverting the page back to a military box, you only labeled down on what needs to be done User:Vidboy10 (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2011 (PST)

I mentioned your edit in the edit summary to take it to the talk page to discuss. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The same editor has placed the infobox in the article two more times and with 3 editors against and 1 for adding the military infobox, no consensus to add it has so far been reached and other editors are now involved. If I am making a mistake by comming here im sorry for that I just feel a consensus should be reached here without all of this adding and removing of content. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that the user reporting this case referred to the infobox change as "vandalism" in his/her second revert, when this is clearly a good faith (if a bit misguided) edit. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It should be also mentioned he (and I mean Vidboy) just did it once again. For at least 6th time in 24 hours and possibly many more. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

And again. And won't stop unless he is stopped. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• This user also removed a photograph on the specious grounds that it is "disturbing." [42] ScottyBerg (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh (Vid)boy! --94.246.150.68 (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Would someone please revdel this?

[43] I know the guy's long dead, but his descendants may well be justifiably upset. Malleus Fatuorum 03:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought RevDel wasn't supposed to be used for material that could be handled by reverting? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Trinity Christian Academy (Addison, Texas)

There seems to be a habitual section blanking problem here, likely with representatives from the school, what can I do to protect the page?Thisbites (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The IP that removed it geolocates to the school itself. An inside job! I will watch-list the page. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

While it may seem unfair that the kid got expelled, it's a private school, and he should have been aware of what he was getting himself into. It looks to me like "undue weight", as I'm sure there have been a number of students expelled over the years, for a number of reasons. I expect the school is pretty strict about anything sex-related. I can only imagine how they handle student pregnancies, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that it's undue weight. The kid is notable enough that he has his own article: James Barnett. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and according to his article, he was not actually expelled from the school. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the controversy section should be there. It's a 1E issue. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC).

Well it's not like the school's so notable that a single event that happened there would be insignificant enough for the school to overshadow it. I think it's worth mentioning. -- œ^™ 04:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Actual discussions about the content of the article need to be handled at the article talk page. Please keep the discussion here relevent to the need for admins to do something, not about what the article should or should not say. That really needs to be discussed on the article talk page. --Jayron32 05:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything here that needs admin attention. According to the kid's article, it was the kid's parents who decided to pull him out in order to save face for the kid. There's no hint that the school thinks they did anything wrong. This looks like a content dispute. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, there's no "habitual" blanking. The IP did it once - in October. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• According to this article, the school was planning on expelling him because he refused to take down the site and make a public announcement that he was "confused", so his father instead just removed him from the school so the expulsion wouldn't end up on his permanent record. Man, this story really hits home. :/ Silverseren^C 09:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • They were nicer to the kid than they had to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I've upset someone

Can an uninvolved admin decide how to handle this attack on me. I feel I've acted fairly with the reverts, warnings on the users talk page and on WP:RSN, and I don't feel the attack against me is justified... but I obviously have a biased opinion.  7  06:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear uninvolved admin: There was a lengthy discussion between User 7 and myself on User 7's discussion page which he/she has now removed/deleted, therefore I can not access it to use as support/evidence for my comment (which User 7 cites above) which I made on my own discussion page. Now the questions are: Did User 7 remove the evidence for the purposes of disposing of the evidence? Did User 7 remove the evidence to put it out of my reach so that I can not use it to cite his/her bullying and abusive manner? Or is User 7 's removal of our discussion from his discussion page a mere coincidence? I do not pretend to know the answers to these questions, but I do think they are relevant.Sjte5409 (talk) 07:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You can see the material he removed here [44], it's not deleted from the records.

However, he's completely right in his warnings towards you, and his deletion of that material. It's trivial, it's badly sourced, and a list of casual sex partners has no business on a BLP. Perhaps if there were a Stern-o-pedia, but not here. Dayewalker (talk) 07:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

THANKS FOR POINTING THAT OUT. SO THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTIONS ABOUT WHERE THAT DISCUSSION WENT. THANKS AGAIN.

THAT IS YOUR OBVIOUSLY BIASED OPINION AND YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE NOT READ MY DISCUSSION PAGE ON THIS SUBJECT OR ELSE YOU WOULD SUPPORT YOUR OPINION STATEMENTS WITH EVIDENCE. OH GOD I HOPE YOU ARE NOT THE UNINVOLVED ADMIN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjte5409 (talk • contribs)

I'm familiar with this edit, and yes, it shouldn't stand. I've warned you about edit warring on your page, please start a discussion on the article talk page if you disagree with the multiple editors reverting you, and try and explain how your addition doesn't violate multiple policies and has encyclopedic value. Dayewalker (talk) 07:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

NOT ONLY ARE YOU EDIT WARRING, BUT YOU ARE AT THIS VERY MOMENT ATTEMPTING TO WAR WITH ME ON A PAGE AND IN A SECTION THAT WAS SOLELY MEANT TO RESOLVE AN ISSUE CONCERNING MY COMMENT ON USER 7'S ABUSIVE TONE AND ACTIONS. SO GET LOST AND PUT YOUR OPINIONS ELSEWHERE, YOU BULLY! Sjte5409 (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

WOULD YOU PLEASE STOP SHOUTING IN ALL CAPS????????? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

User has been politely asked by several people at his talk to stop with the all caps, but so far refuses and explains his reason for SHOUTING ast the rest of us. Heiro 07:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank God - he's finally blocked. Unbelievable... Doc talk 08:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It should have been indef. There is no excuse for stuff like that. None. –MuZemike 08:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It will greatly surprise if upon their return in 3 days they last a whole day before being reblocked for much longer. Heiro 08:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

He is apparently requesting WP:RTV. Is this applied in such cases?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The question is: do we want him around? We can work some sort of understanding: indef + vanish :) -- Luk ^talk 09:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Even if WP:RTV is applicable here, it does not entitle the user to deletion of their user talk page. 206.205.46.18 (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Homeopathy

George1918 (talk · contribs) created a badly formulated poll at Talk:Homeopathy#Is Homeopathy a reliable source for scientific or evidence based medical conclusions? (apparently under the impression that being a "reliable source" is an intrinsic property of a source unrelated to the claim in question), and PPdd (talk · contribs) spammed notifications to a dozen more or less related talk pages. (See Talk:Homeopathy#Objection to the nonsense poll above for a more detailed explanation of the situation from my POV.) I propose that an admin warns both editors to be more careful in the future and, unless PPdd does so themselves, removes most of the spammed notifications as inappropriate. Hans Adler 10:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC) (updated 10:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC))

I created the poll as a subsection from George1918's question by isolating the unresolved part of the question as a subsection header. PPdd (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

As a general note, the atmosphere at the article was quiet and almost harmonious for a long time, but recently it looks as if there might be a return to the old battleground behaviour that led to several Arbcom cases. Symptoms include the appearance of a new sceptic editor who tried to rewrite the historically contentious lead completely without knowing or researching the first thing about the topic, and the sudden appearance of a likely sock of a banned pro-homeopathy editor.

I believe the article is still under discretionary sanctions. While certainly no action should be taken against any individual editor (except for the possible sock; I have filed an SPI), it may soon become necessary to give formal warnings to new editors or to editors whose formal warning about the article sanctions happened long ago. It would be great if a few uninvolved admins could keep an eye on the talk page. Hans Adler 10:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC) (updated 10:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC))

I am one of the editors who "spammed" to relevant Wikiprojects related to using the journal Homeopathy as RS for a physics article in it showing a miraculous "matter genrating machine" at the nanolevel.

Before notifying relevant Wikiprojects (and I presume by the same reasoning, article talk pages related to the RS debate) I was explicitly told by an admin that it was appropriate to do so here[45] --

"How do I "inform a Wikiproject"? I would have liked to do so in several articles, but is this not WP:Canvassing? HkFnsNGA (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi! No it isn't, quite the opposite: wikiprojects exist exactly to provide help from editors who specialize or anyway care about a subject. You just go to the desired wikiproject talk page, open a new section and ask with a neutral message for help. --Cyclopia^talk 23:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)]".

After the notifications I was again told by an admin it was "reasonable" here --[46],

"I put a notice to please vote at a Wikiproject to which the article belonged. I was told that this is the appropriate place to request votes, though I was told to be neutral and should not express a POV as to how to vote. Did I make a mistake? PPdd (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It is reasonable to post a link to the WikiProject; it is also good form to post a note at the discussion saying that you did so. (There might be an expectation that members of the project would tend vote in a block (true or not), and it's good to be completely open about how a discussion has been publicised.) LadyofShalott 02:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)"

PPdd (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

PPdd, FYI, although Cyclopia is a very experienced long-time editor here ("reviewer" status) I don't believe they are an admin. You need to add a tool to your monobook that immediately provides lots of information when you let your mouse pointer hover over a link. In this case it immediately tells me this about Cyclopia: "reviewer, 6735 edits since: 2004-07-25". It even shows me the top of their userpage! -- Brangifer (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"It is reasonable to post a link to the WikiProject". It is unreasonable, however, to post a link to 3 WikiProjects (Rational skepticism, Medicine, Alternative medicine), 3 policy/guideline talk pages (RS, MEDRS, FRINGE) and 5 articles (List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, evidence-based medicine, scientific method, junk science, pathological science). Hans Adler 15:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this ANI is premature. HkFnsNGA is a good-faith editor with some common newbie issues that need ironing out (and it seems they're improving in fact), and George1918 is quite a classical case of tendentious newbie or semi-newbie (I cannot and will not comment on possible sockpuppeting issues). Nothing odd I'd say for such an article, and I wouldn't raise an AN/I for what looks like the natural cycle of such articles on WP. However the "poll" itself was actually helpful (or at least not harmful) in settling the specific matter. I fully agree with Hans Adler that sources are not reliable or not in a vacuum but obviously by context -yet the context indicated in the poll (and most importantly in the poll opinions) was quite circumscribed. I also don't think that notifying wikiprojects per se is akin to spamming -they exist for these very reasons. I personally would have notified the RS/N (don't know if it has been actually done) and perhaps moved the discussion there, but the more eyes on a controversial issue, the better. --Cyclopia^talk 14:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

If I had been aware that PPdd is HkFnsNGA renamed I might have acted somewhat differently, but I was not aware and I don't think that's my fault. It appeared to me that one problematic new user had temporarily disappeared and another problematic user appeared. Even with the new knowledge I don't think this report is premature. The homeopathy article had an extremely bad atmosphere in the past, and excessive spamming of canvasing messages creates a real chance that we will return to that situation soon. The situation should be monitored by uninvolved admins.

This [47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57] was not just "notifying wikiprojects", it was far out of proportion. Especially for an attempt to canvas answers to a question that didn't need asking in the first place because the answer is so obvious. Hans Adler 15:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that PPdd is HkFnsNGA renamed as well. There are a few talk page notices which make little sense but I see nothing serious happening from that. And again: it may seem so obvious to us but this doesn't mean it is obvious to everyone. Too many times I've seen (in WP and in real life) the "obvious" challenged by good faith people. It is good to have a consensus even on the obvious to better rebuke who wants to challenge the obvious due to a POV. --Cyclopia^talk 16:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Boy does that ever apply here! George1918 is such an editor....a very persistent POV pusher who fails to understand many things about how science works. Of course that's generally to be expected from those who are true believers in homeopathy. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I can understand the concerns Hans Adler must have felt when seeing what he thought was a newbie engaged in so much activity! Fortunately it was an experienced editor and the poll was about a specific issue. (In fact, when I discovered that someone didn't follow the link and tried !voting "on the spot", I followed PPdd's trail and made a clearer notice of where to !vote.)

We need to differentiate between proper "notifications" and improper "canvassing":

• Notifications of polls, RfCs, etc. are normally sent to numerous talk pages where it would be logical to expect interested editors to appreciate such a notification. It is important in doing so to include the talk pages of both believers and skeptics, otherwise it's de facto "canvassing".

• Canvassing would be sending such notifications in a manner to get a desired result, either by selective notification or by asking for a certain result. That's very wrong.

In this case I don't see a violation of the prohibition against canvassing. (Whether the question is really unnecessary to ask because the answer is obvious is another matter.) In this case it related to a specific situation and was to demonstrate to a pushy and persistent newbie what the consensus of editors believed on the matter, and it seems to have served the purpose. Some of the !votes were excellent answers that showed how even a normally questionable source should be treated (decision about use as a RS made on a case-by-case basis). Even an often questionable source can be used in some circumstances. It's not a black/white situation.

I'm not saying that everything about this matter was necessarily worded perfectly, or done completely wisely, but in principle I don't see any gross violation. At worst it was a good faith attempt to settle an issue that was very pressing and causing quite a bit of disruption, especially because it was coming from a newbie of questionable origins. Any advice from others who see this from other angles would no doubt be welcomed by all concerned parties here. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I endorse BullRangifer above statement completely. --Cyclopia^talk 17:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't.

• PPdd is not an "experienced editor". PPdd is an over-enthusiastic newbie who is about to cause serious damage at one of our historically most contentious articles, possibly steering it straight to Arbcom.
• The poll was not about a specific issue, or at least not a sensible one. It's hard to tell because it was so unclear. The only thing that was clear was that "no" was the only sensible answer, and that this could later be overinterpreted. Not too long ago I have seen something eerily similar, and it caused a great deal of disruption that was hard to deal with. As a result, I no longer have any tolerance for such bullshit. (As a general comment, I have hardly ever seen a single editor or two create a poll and advertise it widely without waiting for input and approval of the poll's formulation from their fellow editors. I don't know if this is regulated in any way, but acting like this is a sure path to chaos.)
• Notifications are not normally "sent to numerous talk pages where it would be logical to expect interested editors to appreciate such a notification". At least not for values of "numerous" that lie around 10. Two or perhaps three talk pages are reasonable. Eleven are not.
• The choice of talk pages does not appear completely unbiased, either, although I consider this a very minor point.

That said, I agree it wasn't a "gross violation". But it was behaviour that needs to stop. Hans Adler 20:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I am still puzzled as to what to do regarding notification to projects and talk pages to end limitless questions about RS and alternative medicine and pseudoscience journals. The RS related talk pages are directly on point for notification, so are the three projects. I was told that this might create a "block voting" situation, so I thought (thinking there would be a swarm of reacting pseudoscience POV pushers voting) it best to post at talk on relevant article talk pages. (I thought junk science was synonymous with pseudoscience in the court and politics. I was once malisciously prosecuted using what a major national president of a scientific body described in his a keynote address at his body's annual national meeting as, alternatively, "junk physical science" then "pseudoscience".) If the situation arises again, I do not know what is proper. Selectively notifying relevant talk pages is a kind of canvassing. PPdd (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

SmackBot and Rich Farmbrough

Two days ago Fram (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked SmackBot (talk · contribs), operated by Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Rich Farmbrough unblocked his own bot soon after. MSGJ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) reblocked, and Rich Farmbrough unblocked again this morning. I've made a procedural reblock of the bot without no comment on the original block. Rich Farmbrough's potentially quite serious violations of administrator conduct policy merits review here, as perhaps does the original block. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

While his unblock may be technically incorrect, he did follow the text of my block notification: "I have no objection to you unblocking the bot solely to continue with the "build p605" edits, which hve approval and don't seem to be problematic" (well, despite what he claimed, he didn't follow this the first time around, when he went stright back to the kind of edits that lead to the block, but the second, current time he did follow what I posted.) I have now unblocked SmackBot, with the understanding that Rich Farmbrough doesn't restart the type of edits I blocked the bot for until there is evidence that it is an approved task, and with a lower error rate than the run before the block. Fram (talk) 11:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 11:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC).

To be fair, both Fram and MSGJ are much too involved to be making blocks in this area, in my opinion. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I wouldn't block Rich Farmbrough, but SmackBot is just a bot, not an editor. Fram (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

editor User:Intermittentgardener (reposting after archive without comment)

A little while ago I raised an issue at this noticeboard about this user who refuses to justify a reinsertion of texts at Independent Payment Advisory Board which have been seriously challenged. The editor continually reinserts the texts. For instance here, here, here, here, here, and here, The editor accepts that I have explained why I have deleted the texts but says only that my explnations were "incoherent" and has so far refused to justify his or her own reasons for inserting the texts. The editor has unfortunately re-emerged and begun inserting the offending texts yet again.

I have checked the edit history of this user and it is very typical of accounts created for sockpuppetry. The early edits are nearly all inconsequential edits moving texts around via cut and paste (sometimes in different edits) and slightly rewording. Hardly any of the edits had any meaningful impact on the content of Wikipedia until the editor began editing this article and its predecessor. I have not checked if the editor was the original source of the edits that I have challenged, but his or her editing behavior for trying to reinsert them after I deleted them leaves me to think that they may have been. I have been challenged several times about my suspicion of sockpuppety at this article and asked to raise a formal complaint. I have trouble doing so because the complaint procedure requires me to name another user as the so called sockmaster but I have no idea who that may be. Notwithstanding this, the editing behavior of this editor is unacceptable and I ask that an edit ban be imposed.Hauskalainen (talk) 11:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you attempted dispute resolution? This looks very much like a content dispute at core, and it is significantly easier to identify tendentious editing when consensus has been clarified by a broader group of participants. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution with a probable sockpuppet? Have you looked at the editor's editing history? That does not seem likely to produce much of a result. I have listed all the problems with the text he or she is inserting and just refuses to justify the edits. Did you look at the issues I raised? The users inserts are clearly problematic.Hauskalainen (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

SPI is another board. And yes, you must name a sockmaster for a report there and not just continue to accuse the account of socking without any evidence save your suspicions. You "have not checked if the editor was the original source of the edits that I have challenged"? Well, do some homework and see if you can determine a sockmaster (if it is indeed a sock). This is the third time you've filed a report here concerning this exact same editor and issue within a week. You were advised after the first report filed on the 28th to let the WQA run its course, and even that's been archived as well because of lack of input. The fact that the last AN/I report filed two days ago was archived without any input from anyone just might tell you that you are possibly beating a dead horse. "Try dispute resolution" is some very good advice you might want to take. Are you planning on filing this report here yet again if it gets archived? I sincerely hope not... Doc talk 21:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

United States Navy Special Warfare Development Group

I have twice restored removal of sourced text here under WP:Wikipedia is not censored, but we're also not Wikileaks. Can someone double-check me on this?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I've given the other editor a 3RR warning. Haven't gotten to the source yet - does it confirm the material being removed? Alternatively, does this material really add a whole lot to this article? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

For form's sake, I should note that you've reverted 3 times as well - I'm assuming you'll read this rather than a template on your talk page. Let's back off a bit and figure out where consensus lies, ok? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Bueno, thanks. I'm off it for now.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This actually involves two articles - The above United States Navy Special Warfare Development Group article and the United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group. The removal from the "Naval" article is a section that begins with the idea that the subject's organization "can only be speculated upon", and proceeds to speculate for two paragraphs. I don't have an issue with that removal, though it should have been discussed first. The "Navy" article, meanwhile, is a sourced statement about the structure of the organization - and that shouldn't really be removed without discussion, if the source is indeed reliable. I don't think, personally, that it adds a whole lot to the article, but that's just me. I'd like to hear from others, though. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

If someone more knowledgeable than I wants to tackle the merge, these are on the exact same topic with slightly different but useful variations. I am not married to the stuff staying, I am just against censorship of published material in an international encyclopedia not beholden to a single set of classified rules.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I can work on it. I've also blocked User:LMT1978 31 hours for edit warring, as they ignored my notice and reverted again (once on each article). UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I see several discussions on both talk pages encouraging a merge, and I see no sourced information at the "Navy" article (apart from the bit under dispute, but that's discussed at the "Naval" article anyway). Since everything substantive is already at the "Naval" article, would a redirect be in order? Or a full history merge? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I would do a history merge to preserve it, and some of the stuff (graphics) differ.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The only image in the Navy article is also in the Naval one, so images look ok. I'll take a crack at the histmerge later. Note also that LMT1978 was blocked indef for dropping a legal threat into his/her unblock request. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone probably needs to take the source, specialoperations.com, being cited in United States Navy Special Warfare Development Group, to the reliable sources noticeboard at some point. They don't appear to have come up before, they're used quite extensively and it's not at all obvious that they are reliable for anything. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Malleus Fatuorum blocked by User:Geni

That's quite enough.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – Blocked, unblocked. Carry on. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Geni blocked Malleus for 24 hours for saying "There appears to be a great deal that is beyond you Kingturtle, so why not restrict yourself to those things which are not beyond you?" with the reasoning that "Past experience suggests there is little reason to expect you to discontinue to the behaviour so I have blocked you for 24 hours." This strikes me as needing a review. Nev1 (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC) The block was made a full 10 hours after the comment. As I've already noted on Geni's talk, I believe it to be excessive and suggest immediate unblocking. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Indeed. Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC) I also support an immediate unblock - totally overboard unnecessary use of restrictions.Hours after the block for a totally minor adult comment that was imo completely correct. Off2riorob (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Agreed on unblock, but with a slap on the wrists for Malleus, the incident is pure WP:BATTLEGROUND. --Errant (chat!) 13:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC) It's quite stressful tending an article for TFA - an article of this sort inevitably attracts opinion and comment. To block the main editor hours after a comment was made, while the article is still running on the main page is irresponsible. Support immediate unblock. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC) I think blocking for that comment is questionable at best, and hours later it becomes purely punitive. Bad block.Griswaldo (talk) 13:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Urgh. Yeah, unblock him. The worst part of this whole thing is that now we all have to listen to Malleus's one-note symphony about how all admins are worthless and corrupt. Like we all need more of that sort of silliness. Thanks for that, Geni. --Jayron32 13:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC) 1)Malleus certianly claims to be british. I would suggest I'm in a better position to judge the severity of the insult than those don't share that cultural background. 2)This was not a civility block per se but a dissruption one. The talk page of the days featured article should be a place where potential new editors feel that they could fit in. Creating a poisonous atmosphere in such an enviroment is unacceptable since it dissrupts wikipedia's ability to gain and hold new editors. If such comments had been made on a more inward facing page well eh thats Malleus for you.©Geni 13:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC) There is no policy that allows you to apply uncommonly strict standards because a featured article is a place that might attract new users.Griswaldo (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Nothing like Wikipedia:BITE for example? While just a guideline this is covered in the five pillars, - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC) He was rude to a Wikipedia admin and bureaucrat, how on earth is that like biting a newbie? It doesn't matter where one bites newbies either. Geni's claim is that certain articles, because they attract newcomers, should be treated with stricter standards. Again, that is not supported by policy. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC) I also am reminded of this poor block in December from user Geni - her reason - overly strident language - block was overturned in 14 mins. Off2riorob (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC) I don't usually get involved in these but this is an egregiously bad block. This kind of irritable exchange is not what WP:CIV is for. Fainites barleyscribs 13:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC) I didn't cite WP:CIV©Geni 13:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Support immediate unblock. Ridiculous block, clearly punitive. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 13:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC) have you read my reasoning? Anway I've got to go for now per my standard WP:OWN approach anyone can unblock but I will hold them responcible for any bad behaviour by Malleus within the next 24 hours.©Geni 13:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Yes. A reasoning not based in any policy at all. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 13:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Recently we have a new way of dealing with these issues, admins should not have to reverse another admins poor unsupported block, the admin that makes them should unblock the person they blocked and then block themselves for the same time period. Off2riorob (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC) "..and then block themselves for the same time period". Seriously?? -- œ™ 14:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC) I haven't figured out what this was supposed to stop... it was 10 hours after the comment and a full 8 hours after Malleus quit editing, this was obviously turning the whole of Wikipedia into a complete cesspit and needed immediate attention, obviously (sarcasm, for those who might miss it.) Wouldn't it have been better to address the vandalism on the article itself instead? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Support unblock, please Geni, just do it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC) (multiple ec) A block that long, made so long after such an insignificant comment, looks worse than punitive. It looks like "I want to block this editor, can I go back through his history and find something to hang it on?" DuncanHill (talk) 13:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)I've unblocked, based on the majority view here and on both users' talk pages that the block was excessive. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Concur. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Utter stupidity. Parrot of Doom 13:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Ok. Clear personal attack for the other editor making a policyMOS-based suggestion, 24 hour block -- but just because it's Malleus, he gets a speedy unblock? Something is clearly not right here, and I don't think it's the original block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC) A block that was made several hours after the comments which supposedly justified it. Yes, something is clearly not right. Parrot of Doom 14:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Yep, pretty clear that if you are of a certain class of editor you can make backhanded comments to simple good faith suggestions (whether they are correct or not) and walk away. Syrthiss (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC) What disruption did the block prevent? By all appearances, MF had stopped editing already. Not that a warning would have done all that much, but what did the block accomplish exactly? apart from WP:DRAMA? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC) (ec)Stop with the drama please. I don't see any special treatment here. Comments like that are the kind you warn the user for making and save for an RFC if they are repeat offenders. On their own, 10 hours after they are made, they are clearly not blockable offenses. If Geni had warned him for the comment, and he continued to make such comments in the next few days, that's another matter. If he makes more in a month and then more in another month take it to RFC.Griswaldo (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC) The worst sort of awful block.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Look, can we close this? Malleus has been unblocked, so there isn't anything else to do here. Let's just move on. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Agree, nothing more to see here.Griswaldo (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Sure there is. At minimum we need an acknowledgement from the admin that they understand why the block was overturned and a statement that in the future they'll comply with the will of the community.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Geni seems to have stopped editing, and their comment above indicates that they're done for awhile. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Wait, what? Geni needs to write a paragraph explaining what went wrong and that they understand? This isn't high school detention. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC) An acknowledgement of the bad block would be nice, and would be in Geni's best interest. However, if it never comes what's going to happen? Nothing. The bad block is on record as such. A couple of more of these bad blocks someone can seek sanctions or other actions against an admin who is abusing their tools, but I don't think its warranted yet. Overreacting to Geni's bad block isn't much different from Geni's overreaction to Malleus. Let it go until it is meaningful to talk about further.Griswaldo (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC) If Geni's stopped editing then in addition it's important to make sure that Geni understands that making a controversial block and then disappearing has been repeatedly viewed as unacceptable.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC) I'm sure she knows this is what the community feels about her block, and her dissapearence. Feel free to point it out directly to her on her talk page. I doubt she's missing this discussion though. In case it isn't clear, I agree with all of these sentiments, I just don't think anything productive is happening here at this point. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC) As noted above, I have also been on the receiving end of Geni's attitude that blocking hours after an event is not at all punitive (and indeed for comments that would be marginally blockable in the first place IMHO in this instance - no commentary on my block by Geni in that regard). I suggest Geni needs to re-read WP:BLOCK in detail and perhaps assure the community that their Wild West gun slinging attitude to the block button will not continue. Pedro :  Chat  14:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Another year, another block...Smallman12q (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Standard punitive block. I haven't read WP:BLOCK lately; do we still pretend that blocks are "preventative not punitive"? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Blocks should not be punitive Blocks should not be used: in retaliation against users; to disparage other users; as punishment against users, or, where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern. Blocks should be preventative Blocks should be used to: prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia; deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior, and, encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms. Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition. For example, even though it might have been justifiable to block someone a short time ago when they made inappropriate edits, it may no longer be justifiable to block them right now—particularly if the actions have not been repeated, or the conduct issues surrounding the actions have since been resolved. Count Iblis (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Looks like it was preventative Nikkimaria doesn't appear to be around so would anyone else like to do the honors??©Geni 19:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC) No action needed for that one, imo.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC) If you want to reblock for that you need to go now.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Apparent canvassing by User:Pablozeta

User:Pablozeta appears to have been inappropriately canvassing in relation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Argentine. He has sent the same inappropriate notification to multiple editors, based on their presumed opinion over the issue: [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64] (- this is a slightly different message). In fact, a look at his user contributions [[65]] shows that he has contacted each of these individuals more than once - this canvassing is a repeat of a similar earlier message.

Given this attempt to subvert due process in relation to the AfD discussion, can I ask that appropriate action be taken. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Clear canvassing. User has few edits- it's possible they're not aware this is inappropriate. Have they been informed? --King Öomie 15:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have informed Pablozeta: see User_talk:Pablozeta#Canvassing_re_White_Argentine_AfD. He has been contributing since September 2009, and has made 875 edits [66]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think King Öomie meant; have you explained to them that this sort of activity is against our policy? And did they continue after you explained? --Errant ^(chat!) 16:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I doubt very much, from previous experience, that Pablozeta would take much notice of anything I told him about policy. He has been editing longer than I have, and seems to know his way around noticeboards etc well enough. If he isn't aware that canvassing is inappropriate, he should be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I just mean to make sure. Unlike criminal law, we work very hard to avoid punishing people who legitimately aren't aware they're breaking rules. WP:CANVASS is one of those that's A) Not encountered often and B) not immediately recognizable as a policy violation (as in, it's okay basically anywhere but Wikipedia). Obviously, if he's aware of the policy and acted in spite of it, action needs to be taken. --King Öomie 16:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Pablozeta was aware that canvassing was against policy, it has now occurred. I think that this should probably be made clear in the AfD, if only to make the closing admin aware of the situation. Perhaps an uninvolved person could add a note? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe just the blanket "If you are here because someone asked you to comment..." thing we put up on things. Not sure what that template is. --King Öomie 17:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I added the {{notavote}} template, although that's usually for off-wiki canvassing. -Atmoz (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Perseus, Son of Zeus odd behavior?

• Perseus, Son of Zeus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

In the space of a few minutes, the above user has added material to the encyclopedia, reverted said material, came here to request a revdel, removed the request once it was complete, requested deletion of their userpage with a G7, blanked their talk page that contained a question from me about the first part of this sequence, and now changed both their userpage and usertalk to wikibreak notices 'for exams'. Is anyone else suspicious that this is a compromised account? I don't have much exposure to this editor so I don't know if this is S.O.P for them, and didn't see any indication that they are under mentorship or anything. Syrthiss (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It's SOP, actually. Mentoring might not be a bad thing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about getting a mentor a few days before, I looked for a list of "mentors". Couldn't finnd one. --Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 18:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I do have exams. --Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 18:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters is one list you could pick from. Good luck with the exams. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm already adopted by Derild4921, I'm looking for a mentor, like a second view besides the adopter. --Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 18:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

My account was just compromised, probably because I left the computer on and was still signed in. --Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 19:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Generally, compromised accounts are blocked indefinitely. TNXMan 19:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Given the rather trivial circumstances of the problem, perhaps this is a good time to reconsider that general approach. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, please don't block me... --Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 19:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

DNBTT? 71.141.88.54 (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think a block is necessary here, Persus has his account back, maybe just an evil glare is all that is needed. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 21:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

<spam>User:Fetchcomms/Children and Wikipedia</spam>. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Administrative eyes on Priscilla K. Coleman and its active editors

I'd like to ask for outside administrative input on Priscilla K. Coleman. This article is the scene of an active edit war, and the tone of discourse on the talk page is probably amply summarized in this thread. In particular, I would like other admins to review the recent actions of Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs). Aside from edit-warring, highlights include:

• When asked for policy-based arguments, responds: "You are just a hater of the un-born who will stop at nothing to decieve people on the truth about abortion."
• Repeatedly addresses other editors by calling them "radical feminists" ([67], [68], [69])
• Touts lifesitenews.org and other pro-life websites as reliable sources ([70]), while dismissing the American Psychological Association ([71]) and the New York Times ([72]) as unreliable.
• States that another editor is "a radical feminist who is trying to use the biased attack nature of this article to suppress the truth and have more women commit suicide."

This last diff goes beyond basic incivility. I'm not a stickler about personal attacks, but accusing another editor of intentionally trying to cause women to commit suicide is so far beyond the pale of reasonable discourse that, were I not involved in the discussion, I would block for it. How can you collaborate with someone who thinks you relish the prospect of driving women to suicide? These attacks are layered on top of partisan, tendentious editing, the promotion of low-quality sources, the removal of reliable sources which contradict an editor's agenda, and of course edit-warring.

There's been some talk recently about the need to deal more effectively with WP:ACTIVIST editing, so I'd like to bring this here as an example, and as a situation that's in need of outside administrative attention. MastCell ^Talk 21:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Amended: an admin has blocked Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs) for 31 hours for edit-warring, and I'm grateful for his quick attention to the matter. I'd still like to leave this thread open, because I think the problem here seems pretty deep-seated and potentially likely to recur after the block expires, but I appreciate the rapid administrative attention to the matter. MastCell ^Talk 21:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Bulldog123 and Jewish sportspeople

As part of a running battle going on over the past several weeks, User:Bulldog123 has been editing articles to remove mentions of the fact that athletes are Jewish, removing links to List of Jews in sports and removing categories such as , from several dozen articles in the past few days, such as this recent edit. In many cases, these reverts by Bulldog123 removed material that had been added by User:Epeefleche. User:Ironholds has pleaded with Bulldog123 to cease making such edits without a consensus supporting his actions (see here) and Ironholds reverted a sequence of Bulldog123's edits. At roughly the same time, I went through a series of about a dozen articles that Bulldog123 had blindly reverted and added appropriate sources documenting the identity of these individuals as Jewish athletes. In every one of the dozen or so articles that I had gone through in the order in which Bulldog123 had reverted mentions of the individuals being Jewish sportspeople, I had no issue finding numerous sources using a Google search consisting of the individual's name, their sport and the word "Jewish". I had thought that the addition of such sources would address Bulldog123's issues, only to have him revert another dozen articles, such as here and here. It appears that Bulldog123 has been unable to separate his personal opinions on the subject of Jewish sportspeople from consensus on the subject and documentation provided using the dozens of reliable and verifiable sources that cover Jews in sports (as discussed here). It would appear that a content ban restricting Bulldog123 would be the most appropriate means of dealing with this pattern of belligerent editing on his part and that further subsequent edit warring on this topic or other similar matters related to ethnicity should result in blocks of increasing length. Alansohn (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)