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

User:SqueakBox and paid editing (again)

Unresolved

 – Split 77kb+ thread to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/User:SqueakBox_and_paid_editing_(again) --slakr^\ talk /

Block of User:Collect by User:2over0

Resolved

I have to disagree with the 1-week block of Collect (talk · contribs) by 2over0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Collect is a longstanding contributor, and has always been firm but within policy. I'm not seeing any warnings or attempt to work with the user before the block. Kelly ^hi! 02:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Collect is a long-term contributor and certainly aims to improve the project, but also has a history of edit warring without meaningful contribution to ongoing dialogue, especially on political topics. They also regularly make comments that serve to inflame rather than calm a situation, and has been warned to this effect in the past. Looking at the history of Glenn Beck and talk, Collect stands out as failing to contribute to resolving this morning's discussion-by-edit-summary. I chose 1 week based on the block log and usertalk history, which show similar issues cropping up repeatedly. The most recent block was three months ago for 72 hours, and was lifted "by mutual consent". If anyone thinks that I should not have escalated the term of the block based on this, I would not object to the length being reduced.

As Collect is currently blocked, I will be checking their talkpage for comments to copy to this discussion. Anyone else should, of course, feel free to do the same. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Collect hadn't edited Glenn Beck for 11-12 hours before you blocked them. Was the block for Glenn Beck or for something going on at Wikipedia:Activist? What action was taken in regard to other editors at the Beck article? Kelly ^hi! 03:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I only see a single edit by Collect at Glenn Beck and it certainly seems to be a reasonable one. Kelly ^hi! 03:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Very questionable block. Either provide diffs to support your block or Please revert it. Pointing to his block log is no evidence of a need to block him. Fences&Windows 03:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I saw the diffs on his talk page. Totally unconvincing; 2over0, you seem to have been trigger happy here. There's nothing to justify a block, let alone a week. Fences&Windows 03:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

2/0, can you be clear? Was the block for edit-warring at Glenn Beck or for something else? Kelly ^hi! 03:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• To preface, Collect and myself have had significant editorial disagreements in the past, and likely will do so in the future. I cannot see how "It certainly states his own opinion of his own position -- the cavil that "dunno" somehow reduces the value of the statement is withot reasonable foundation." or this diff are grounds for a block. This is a singularly bad block. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Collect has a long history of less than constructive editing and I believe that a short block such as this one will help him to become a more constructive editor. TFD (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Half a day is not so long that an edit warring block would be stale. As detailed at the blocking statement, the edits to Glenn Beck and talk were the impetus for this block. I mentioned the edit to the essay purely because I checked Special:Contributions/Collect as part of due diligence, and noticed that the edit summary was impolite.

Two other editors who had been having a bit of a tiff at Glenn Beck worked out their differences, for which I thanked them and recommended Requests for page protection in the event that discussion breaks down again. I do not think that any other action is warranted at that article just now, but articles on controversial figures are prone to flare up without warning.

The single edit was part of an ongoing edit war, which is part of the problematic pattern here and for which Collect has been warned. There were several different reversions going back and forth, but the history is clear with regards to that material. By itself, I would neither count that edit as unreasonable, but most content disputes have reasonable arguments on both sides. It was not a vandalism revert, supported by clear talkpage consensus, or otherwise exempt from the provisions at WP:EW. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just not getting how a single edit on a page makes him blockable for edit-warring. Can you provide diffs on how Collect caused problems that required blocking them to prevent damage to the project? Kelly ^hi! 03:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of Collect and think it is appropriate for admins to keep him on a short leash generally. However, I have to agree that the diffs provided don't seem to make an adequate case on their own. Perhaps there is more to it (in which case, providing evidence of behaviour immediately prior or warnings would be useful). Otherwise, I would have to agree that the block should be undone. --FormerIP (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

2over0 has provided zero "real" evidence on this page to support this block. I am ashamed for all users who use numbers at the begining and end of their handles. --Threeafterthree (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• This block is outrageous. Collect should be unblocked immediately and unless 2/0 can provide a reasonable explanation he should be banned from acting against this editor going forward. ATren (talk) 05:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If the block is improper, it should be reversed. No need to escalate with the outrage. Lambanog (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's worth discussing whether this block is part of a pattern of poorly-justified blocks. If it is, an RFC or something similar might be appropriate. --Captain Occam (talk) 13:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Would someone please unblock Collect? This was clearly a terrible block

2/0 cited 3 diffs. The first was a revert in a minor edit war and is the only one remotely actionable -- but 2/0 took no action against the other warriors, each of whom reverted several times. The second diff 2/0 cited was a comment on the talk page that is completely innocuous, and which 2/0 is misrepresenting. The third diff was actually a proper revert of a pointy, sarcastic edit on a contentious essay. Again, 2/0 said nothing about the initial provocation. The edit comment questions the pointy edit but is not remotely problematic.

There is no basis for even a warning here, let alone a week-long block.

This is one of the worst blocks I've ever seen, and it should be immediately reverted. ATren (talk) 06:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I have to admit I'm a little puzzled at the delay in the unblock, given the comments above. Kelly ^hi! 06:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Collect has commented on his talk page here. Kelly ^hi! 06:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• I support an unblock. According to 2over0's post on Collect's talk page, Collect seems to have been blocked for a week because of three edits. One revert at Glenn Beck; this comment, deemed uncivil; and this edit summary. Is that really all there was? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• This was clearly a wrong block to make. The diffs in question are not anything that any user should be blocked for, the only contentious one being the first, and since it was a single edit, it does not constitute an edit war. Silverseren^C 06:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Unblocked

I've unblocked per seeming consensus in the discussion above. I do this without implying any criticism of the integrity or general judgment of my respected colleague 2/0 but it seems the consensus here is that this block should be undone. --John (talk) 06:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was going to give it a few more hours in the hopes that someone else would see the same pattern I do, but there is unarguably consensus here for your unblock. Thanks to everyone who took the time to review the edit history. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Explanation needed from 2/0 for block?

Don't we need some kind of explanation for this really strange block? Kelly ^hi! 06:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I second this. This goes well beyond a simple judgment call. The three diffs he presented were not offensive whatsoever, and he outright misrepresented the second and third. ATren (talk) 06:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• I wouldn't mind seeing an explanation for it. It was undone quickly, but it has added to Collect's block log. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Atren seems to be using this to continue his onslaught on Shell Kinney on her talk page. [1][2][3][4] That does not look so good. (Isn't Collect one of the users whose edit warring resulted in the locking of Communist terrorism several times and who has been discussed multiple times at these noticeboards?) Mathsci (talk) 10:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that some explanation is needed for this block. I’ve experienced something similar to this from 2over0 last June, when he blocked me for two weeks with a summary "repeated edit warring, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, disruptive editing, and assumptions of bad faith", but was unwilling to provide any diffs of the behavior that led to my block either when he was asked about it in his user talk, or in the subsequent AN/I thread about this. In response to the AN/I thread, Georgewilliamherbert vacated the restrictions on my account (which the block had been replaced with), but 2over0 still never provided any diffs of the behavior for which he blocked me. I don’t have very much experience with 2over0, but based on my own example as well as the current example, it seems that 2over0 may have an overall pattern of poor judgment when it comes to blocking users. --Captain Occam (talk) 11:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• The question is whether this block was justified, not previous ones. 2over0 attributed the week-long block (which began without a warning at 02:36 Jan 8) here on Collect's talk page to these three edits:

1. One revert at 15:53 Jan 7 (nearly 12 hours before the block) at Glenn Beck, where a user was repeatedly removing uncontentious material sourced to CBS, and Collect was one of the editors who restored it. 2over0 said this was objectionable because it "continued an edit war already in progress."
2. This post, just before the revert, at 15:37 Jan 7 (12 hours before the block) to Talk:Glenn Beck, which 2over0 said was ad hominem. It was explaining why the CBS material was reliable: "It certainly states his own opinion of his own position -- the cavil that "dunno" somehow reduces the value of the statement is withot reasonable foundation." That is not an ad hominem comment, and even if it were it would not be a reason to block.
3. This edit summary at 00:58 Jan 8 (around 90 minutes before the block) at Wikipedia:Activist, which 2over0 said was the kind of edit summary that should be avoided. The edit reverted this addition to the essay by Mastcell: "If your irony detector has started beeping incessantly, then you've probably noticed that this essay is a case in point," not exactly a helpful edit. Collect reverted it with the edit summary: "it would be nice to at least pretend that the edits are to improve the essay really." In the interests of transparency, Short Brigade Harvester Boris restored Mastcell's edit, and I removed it.

It appears from the fact that the first two edits were innocuous, and from the timing of the block, that the trigger was the edit summary at Wikipedia:Activist. Even if that edit summary was inappropriate—and if it was, it was slight—it can't justify a block, never mind a block for a week. Given that the issue at Activist has become related to the climate-change dispute, and there has been concern before at 2over0's admin actions in that area—though I don't know whether the concern is justified—I feel that 2over0 does owe a further explanation. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Taken in isolation, SV is correct. The essay however is spin-off of WP:ARBCC and a political football, perhaps not to be taken too seriously. The problems with Collect's editing mentioned in this RfC and the subsequently declined RfArb unfortunately still cloud the issue. Like SV, I don't see any relation to other blocks by 2/0. Collect has been explicitly warned about edit warring and, in particular, about joining in edit wars, as recorded under WP:DIGWUREN.[5] That warning, however, was specifically about articles connected with Eastern Europe. That could also have led to some confusion. Mathsci (talk) 12:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I said this block should be examined in isolation of other blocks in Collect's block log. I didn't say I saw no relation to other blocks by 2over0. He has indeed used the tools a fair bit in the climate-change articles, though I haven't looked to see whether there's a pattern. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• - Awful block - No discussion just the admins arbitrary opinion that they see a pattern, perhaps the admin would take his own block on board in relation to his own account - one weeks removal of his own editing privileges. admins should think to themselves before they make weakly claimed reasons to restrict contributors by blocks for extended periods of time ..if this block is rapidly overturned and consensus is against it being correct or warranted that I will take it on-board and commit to and restrict my own account for the same time period - this would at least encourage them to give such punitive actions the thought it deserves.Off2riorob (talk) 12:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That is an interesting point, perhaps there should be (not just in this case) a case for the idea that if blocks are overturned then the blocker should be blocked for the same amount of time by bot. I do find it odd that we can take into account CXollects past endevours to establish a patern but not 2/0's.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Slater, we don't block punitively, and an automatic block everytime an admin makes a mistake (and admins are human) can only be punitive. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

As in this case we do appear to block punativly (and this does not read like a mistake, its not like he has not done it before) It seems to me there is a problom with admins who are immune from sanction and yet behave in appaling ways. I think there may be acase for tighter controls on admin actions.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec, of course) By popular request: I occasionally monitor a few hotbed political topics with an eye to reducing edit warring and urging calm. Glenn Beck lit up like a sore thumb when I checked in. The recent history contained three highly active editors, Collect, an edit-semi-protected request, and a BLP vandal. One of the highly active editors seemed to be editing mostly tangentially, using well-expressed edit summaries, and generally refraining from revert warring. Two of the highly active editors talked to each other about WP:3RR and agreed to wait for more discussion. Said discussion convinced me both that neither editor should be blocked and that the article should not be protected.
This brings us to Collect; this edit was the fourth in a string of re-re-reverts. Especially on a controversial article, this sort of back and forth without intervening substantive discussion is edit warring. Collect's edit added fuel to an already burning fire. The most pertinent discussions at the talkpage at this point are here and here. Collect's sole contribution to that discussion was to accuse a fellow editor of obstructionist malfeasance. This is not the sort of comment to encourage collegial debate and collaborative editing. As I stated a few hours ago, I chose the block length as a standard escalation of the previous blocks.
Both edit warring on contentious political articles and making unproductive rude comments are a continuing pattern with this editor. I warned Collect for similar edits to Mass killings under Communist regimes and talk back in October. Since then, the pattern has continued with problematic edits at such pages as Communist terrorism and talk, John Birch Society and talk, Carl Paladino and talk, Unite Against Fascism and talk, and Talk:Fox News Channel. Reading the relevant discussions, it is clear that Collect's contributions often serve to foster ill will and promote an adversarial editing environment. Collect does good work in maintaining high sourcing standards in our BLP articles, but in political articles far too often sinks to edit warring without substantive discussion and unproductive comments directed at other editors to the detriment of productive discussion.
I bow to the consensus here that this does not represent a pattern in need of redress, but I have been asked to provide a more thorough analysis as to why I felt that a block would best serve the encyclopedia. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Gosh uyou do not seem to indicate you meant anything at all by your apology to me. Shall I go on? I did not say anyone was "guilty of obstructionist malfeasance" on Glenn Beck to begin with. As for the Mass killings/ Digwuren warning - I invite every single admin to examine my edits thereon. Including my "violation of 1rr where there was a clearly posted restriction" where the "clear posting" occurred after the edit! And I invite every admin to examine my edits at Communist terrorism as well. Indeed, I invite any edotpr or admin to point out all my improper and intemperate edits. And I would ask everyone to note that I post often on talk pages, please check my edit stats. So if this is what is meant by your "apology" I fear what your "umbrage" would be :). Collect (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

"...And "edotpr" is "Russian" for..." ;> Doc talk 14:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Likely "early morning typins skills are reduced" or the like. Collect (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

In answer to SlimVirgin's implied question above: I was unaware of the edit to Wikipedia:Activist until I checked Collect's recent contributions as part of due diligence before blocking. The edit summary jumped out at me, so I included it merely as an aside. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Yes Collect has long term problems with editorial relations. No your justification of the block was radically inappropriate. Particularly when dealing with editors with long term problems you should be extraordinarily correct. Your selection of edits to block over, and your continued mischaracterisation of hostility in the talk page edit indicates you need to avoid dealing with this particular constellation of social sciences issues as an admin. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Isn't there some kind of admin guideline regarding the use of tools within articles they themselves have edited or in topics they have an specific interest in? If not, there should be, as in "Do. Not. Use." and refer to RfC/U. Not supporting that that's necessarily what's going on, but it seems to be the implication above. It is a serious issue in general, though. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 14:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the policy is at WP:INVOLVED. Like everything else, I drifted into this area after it showed up at WP:AN3. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

What was it that showed up on WP:AN3? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

These many months later, I honestly could not say. Probably Mass killings or Holodomor or something like that. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see the connection. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Neither do I, but there is significant overlap in the active editors. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Question for 2over0

• 2over0, thanks for the explanation. The concern is that you use the tools a fair bit in climate change/science articles, and that it tends to be on the same side (if that's not correct, my apologies; this is based on a scan of your block log). Collect's revert [6] at Glenn Beck—an article related to climate-change because of Beck's views—was accompanied by an explanation on the talk page beforehand. [7] Is that the post you say accuses someone of obstructionist malfeasance?

  You thanked the user who had engaged in most of the reverting for not continuing with the edit war. [8] Then a minute or two later you blocked Collect, after she had reverted POINTy material [9] added to Wikipedia:Activist by an editor you're quite closely associated with. Collect's every edit to that page that I have seen has been to try to smooth out the differences between the two "sides," so it's unfortunate that it appears (stress: appears) to have triggered a block.

  Whether it's fair or not, perception is the thing that matters when judging an admin's involvement. With that in mind, would you be willing to agree not to use the tools in relation to climate change (broadly construed), or in relation to any of the people who regularly edit in that area? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I had thought that I already have been avoiding climate change related articles since about May or June of last year (excepting the ArbCom). It was a cesspit; I have not seen it at WP:AE lately, so maybe the editing environment has improved. I suppose given his political views I can guess at Beck's stance on climate change, but it does not seem to be mentioned at the article, nor does there seem to be much overlap with the regulars in the climate change topic area. SlimVirgin, I know we disagree about some small matters at WP:SCIRS, but for the most part I edit science articles in preference to adminning them. Political commentators and historical controversies are deliberately pretty far from my core interests. Gloria Allred is probably the closest article here, and I only watch that because it is such a BLPvio-magnet.

Looking at my contributions history, this matter was my first edit for some three hours. Obviously I am the only one in a position to know my actual state of mind, but three hours sounds about right to sift through a day of heavy editing, a week of heavy talk, four sets of contributions and talkpages, and compose a few messages. Please notice that I also thanked the other editor concerned four seconds after your link. Then fifteen seconds later I posted the block notice. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't really address the issue. The point is that you're seen (I stress: rightly or wrongly) as an admin who takes sides over climate-change and related science issues. Mastcell is an editor you support; he nominated you for adminship. Two hours after Collect reverted him, you blocked Collect. You say the block wasn't connected to that revert, and of course I take your word for that, but it looks as though it was, and that is the difficulty

During your RfA, you said you would not be able to use the tools in certain scientific areas. You wrote: "As for potential future administrative actions in the area, they would be severely circumscribed by WP:UNINVOLVED. The articles actively edited by myself or an editor about whom I have formed an opinion covers, I suspect, most of Category:Pseudoscience and its proper subcategories." The question here is: are you willing to extend that self-restraint to articles and editors related to climate change, broadly construed? I think an agreement from you about this would put minds at rest. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

But Cla68 contends that your WP:ACTIVIST essay is unrelated to the CC case. If it is related, he is in violation of his arbcom sanction ("initiating or participating in any discussion substantially relating to these articles anywhere on Wikipedia, even if the discussion also involves another issue or issues"). You can't have it both ways. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If you think you're doing 2over0 any favours by posting here with that attitude, you're wrong. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Involvement

SlimVirgin -- You stated that "The concern is that you use the tools a fair bit in climate change/science articles, and that it tends to be on the same side". First off, admins focusing in a particular subject area in which they are familiar can be a very good thing. If they know about the subject, they are more likely to be able to detect good sources from bad, undue weight to things that go against expert consensus, etc. If they have been involved in that topic on Wikipedia for a long time, they are likely to know the history of problematic editors, understand all of the long-standing interpersonal conflicts, etc. This all puts them in a more informed position, which makes it more likely that they'll do the right thing. The involvement only becomes a problem if they start using their tools to help lend undue weight to certain ideas, allow the use of low-quality sources (or prevent good ones from being used), or sanction editors that are making valid edits. Second, you stated that his use of tools "tends to be on the same side". I'm assuming that you're saying that his use of tools is more often used on editors who are inappropriately trying to insert "climate change denial" statements that go against scientific consensus. There is nothing wrong with this, any more than there would be with using tools more often on creationists in evolution or flat earth-ers in geography. It's far more likely that a person that strongly believes in something that goes against consensus is going to make problematic edits, and therefore more likely that such a person will have admin tools used against them. That said, I'm still not sure I agree with this particular block, but given Collect's long-term disruption, I don't see it as terrible either. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's good when admins are familiar with an area qua admins. But there's been consensus for some time that we shouldn't use the tools in areas we edit in a lot, unless it's a straightforward issue like vandalism; i.e. it's not only specific articles that can trigger a conflict of interest. 2over0 made clear during his RfA that he wouldn't use the tools in the area of pseudoscience, and the argument of certain CC editors is that opposition to the mainstream amounts to a fringe position. So that's a bit close for comfort. Admins also have to be seen to be even-handed. If 2over0 has issued blocks on both sides, that's fine (there was definitely poor behavior on both sides), but that's not what I saw from a quick scan of his block log.

Anyway, the question is whether 2over0 will agree to withdraw, or whether further dispute resolution is needed, and that's something only he can answer. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Any administrator sufficiently familiar with an area to make the editorial judgments that Jrtayloriv mentions above (especially assessment of use of sources) is likely to be able to help more by doing three things: (1) contributing as an editor to the articles; (2) explaining to other editors what problems exist with various sources; and (3) helping to form an editorial consensus that uninvolved administrators can use to see who is editing against said editorial consensus and/or editing in such a way as to promote poor or misleading use of sources. In the model Jrtayloriv suggests, such "judgments" take place inside the admin's head and are explained in warnings or blocking statements. It is better for such judgments to be laid out in the open prior to sanctioning, with sufficient clarity that other editors and uninvolved admins can judge the matter for themselves. This is a general point, though, as I can't recall offhand the level of editorial involvement the two editors here have in the topic at hand. In an ideal world, editorial discussion alone would be sufficient to resolve disputes without administrator intervention. Carcharoth (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a position that is scarily divorced from reality. I've tried "contributing as an editor", "explaining problems" and "(trying to) form consensus" for about 7 years. I still do. It works very occasionally, and only if you invest an enormous amount of patience and effort. But almost invariably, an admin who learns enough about a complex topic area to make informed decisions about content will also come to be involved. That runs through admins really quick, leaving those either structurally unable to become qualified, or deliberately pretending to be uninvolved while pushing an agenda behind the scenes. Building content is the purpose of this encyclopaedia. It should be clear that admins (and ArbCom) cannot operate as content-unaware automatons, and still help improve the quality of the content. It's a well-known effect that if you use a proxy-indicator to measure performance, people will quickly learn to optimise the proxy, not the performance. In other words, if you value civility over neutrality, people will become civil POV pushers. In general, if you value knowledge of and adherence to Wikipedia rules and regulations over domain expertise, you will get people investing their time in Wikipedia space, arguing on AN/I and before ArbCom, or creating new shortcuts to beat people they disagree with. If following Wikipedia procedure harms content and content creators, WP:IAR has to come out with a vengeance. And that requires active and informed admins, not a kind of "neutral super-admin" that circles the Wikipedia in a teflon-spandex dress, refrains from constructive work, and only swoops in from afar to judge situations on the most superficial criteria. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, Stephan. I find that uninvolved admins are often able to make better decisions precisely because they don't get bogged out in the details of the dispute, and aren't swayed by their own opinions. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, you are wrong. Of course there is a difference between involvement and bias, and that difference is not well-reflected in WP:INVOLVED. A lot of the relevant information is in the details. And just because an admin has not edited in an area does not mean she no opinion. Her a-priory opinions will likely be coloured by her cultural outlook, and, given the composition of Wikipedia editors, help to re-inforce systemic bias. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Involvement as an editor almost always entails bias, whether the editor is aware of it or not, and always leads others to suspect bias. The perception of fairness is what matters. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

While appearances matter to a degree, I prefer substance over appearances. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The substance and appearance in this case are that some CC editors were being opposed on an essay. An admin seen as a friend of theirs blocked an editor who reverted one of them. Other editors with sympathies in the same direction arrived to defend the admin and try to close down discussion about it. So—no lessons learned from the CC case. Everyone looks bad, some more time is wasted, and some more trust is lost. What's the point? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Mu. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

And now William Connolley has arrived to restore the edit Collect was (it appears) blocked for removing. [10] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Does this comment serve any purpose except for further promoting the WP:AGF violation that this is somehow connected to climate change? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with Stephan Schulz. As far as I know Future Perfect at Sunset and Dbachmann are our most active and by far most successful admins in the general area of ethnic disputes, especially in the Balkans. That's because they are knowledgeable in that area and can easily tell little known facts that are hard to find in the scholarly literature from politically motivated disinformation. I have been watching FPAS' talk page for a long time, and it's obvious from the complaints he gets there how well it works: Editors from both sides of a dispute frequently complain about the behaviour of someone on the other side, asking FPAS to do something, but it's very rare that an editor complains about FPAS himself.

This works so well because in most Balkans conflicts the situation is ultimately symmetric: There are nationalists on one side, nationalists on the other side, and there are serious scholars who do not side with either side. As a result, admins automatically appear fair simply by being fair and representing the scholarly side in every dispute.

Areas such as global warming, where science itself is under a well organised attack by political forces (in the real world the phenomenon and its continuity with the tobacco/breast cancer link denial has been researched by scholars; in Wikipedia its manifested by extensive socking and off-site canvassing), are different in that a fair admin who also understands and represents scholarship has many more occasions to sanction editors on one side than there are opportunities to sanction someone on the other side.

In such a fundamentally asymmetric situation fairness cannot be measured by simplistic counting. This is structurally the same canard as that of a "liberal bias" of the US mass media, which actually have an enormous right-wing bias, as the comparison to media in Europe and elsewhere shows.

Involvement of admins is not about knowledge of a subject or editing in the large area. It's about interpersonal disputes and concrete disputes. There is a tendency for every rule in guideline to be interpreted in a more and more fundamentalist way, and that's always a bad thing. Do this with WP:INVOLVED and you will ban those from admin work who understand a dispute and are best placed to resolve it – unless they are willing to engage in unnatural behaviour such as refraining from editing where they are knowledgeable. Nobody wants to let the admins of the Chinese Wikipedia, and only those who don't understand English, work here and let our admins deal with conflicts over on the Chinese Wikipedia. I guess we will never reach that level of absurdity, but you have definitely reached the point of diminishing returns in strictness of WP:INVOLVED interpretation.Hans Adler 12:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The point I was making is that any editor of a topic (who happens to have the admin tools) can explain to other admins what is going on in a topic area and what action is needed, rather than taking the shortcut of taking action themselves. Unless you are saying that it wastes time to explain to others why action is needed in a particular case? Those admins who are saying that their content expertise is needed to be able to administrate an area, have you ever tried administrating in areas that you know nothing about? It should be theoretically possible. Sure, it is a balancing act between staying aloof and getting dragged into content disputes, but then every admin should know that already. A little bit of knowledge of a content area can inform the decisions made, but it shouldn't dominate the decision-making process for admins (for editors, of course, knowledge of the content is paramount). Carcharoth (talk) 07:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be promoting an impersonal bureaucracy. It's not practical, and it would not be an environment in which editors and admins would enjoy contributing their time to the project. Hans Adler 10:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Stephan says above: "if you value civility over neutrality, people will become civil POV pushers" - the irony is that elevating civility considerations to the same level as POV pushing considerations is exactly the trap that the civil POV pushing essay falls into. The primary consideration should be whether someone is pushing a point of view. Not whether someone is civil, or uncivil, or has purple skin. Look past the civility considerations and try and discern if they are pushing a point of view. Sure, someone being civil can obscure POV pushing, but the point is to identify the POV pushers, not to identify the civil POV pushers and leave the incivil POV pushers alone. The key is to identify POV pushing and take action against it. There may be a subset of POV pushers that hide under a veneer of civility, but that doesn't mean they require more attention than all the other POV pushers. Civility and POV pushing are two separate things, and conflating them when dealing with them does more harm than good. i.e. Sanction civil POV pushers for being POV pushers, but cite WP:NPOV when doing so. The shortcut WP:PUSH should really redirect to an essay on POV pushing (rather than one on civil POV pushing), as civil POV pushing is only a subset of the overall set of POV pushers. Finally, when you have an incivil POV pusher, it is imperative to sanction them for being a POV pusher, and not to take the easy option of sanctioning for incivility. Carcharoth (talk) 07:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's time we made clear that admins are expected to be entirely uninvolved when making decisions that could turn out to be contentious. It used to be the case that we had to avoid using the tools only on specific articles we'd edited, but over the last couple of years, there's been a move against that narrow definition of "involved," so that most admins now know not to use the tools in general topic areas they've edited a lot, unless the decision is an uncontentious one (dealing with vandalism, and similar). I think we should add something about that to the various policies, so there's no misunderstanding about it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the relevant policy was already clear, and did address the issue of involvement in broad topic areas. I've made it a bit clearer with this edit. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I am pretty sure that your edit changed the policy significantly. Ncmvocalist reverted you, and I endorse the revert. The involvement rules have become overly strict in practice, in some areas recently. I see this as a problem that needs correcting, not as a fundamental shift in policy that should be written down and applied to all areas.

Please seek a consensus on the talk page first. Hans Adler 11:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

So when a user has been found to have acted incorrectly and has not said they will not do it again what would the normal course of events be exactly?Slatersteven (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Repeated patterns of behaviour are significant. 2over0 blocked Captain Occam.[11] He refused to give a reason for the block which was reversed by another admin. The same has happened here. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC).

There's no repeated pattern of behavior. Following the link you provided, 2/0 explained that RL events prevented him from commenting on the block of Captain Occam. Here, he has commented. No similarity, no pattern. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

More history and discussion of this disturbing incident is here. [12]. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC).

What Xxanthippe has written is incorrect. 2over0 lifted the block himself, so that Captain Occam could participate in the ArbCom case. That is easy to read in the link she provided and also in Captain Occam's block log. [13] Had there been any problem, it would have been considered during the ArbCom case. The block log shows that Captain Occam was blocked for "Repeated WP:edit warring, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:disruptive editing, and assumptions of bad faith" and unblocked to participate in the WP:ARBR&I case. Mathsci (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That’s not what Xxanthippe is talking about. When 2over0 unblocked me, it was only to participate in the arbitration case, so I was still disallowed from participating in every page at Wikipedia except for the arbitration case and discussions that were specifically related to appealing his decision. In other words, I was “topic banned” from every page at Wikipedia. This is the decision which was later reversed by Georgewilliamherbert. Here is the diff of where GWH did so.

It’s also important to remember that for the first day that people were asking 2over0 for the diffs of the behavior for which he blocked me, he was still active at Wikipedia. This should be obvious from the fact in the discussion about this in my user talk, he was replying to my questions about it; he just wasn’t providing any diffs. He also replied to the first several comments about this in his own user talk, still without providing any diffs of what he blocked me for. He didn’t go offline until after he’d been refusing to answer people’s question about this for around 12 hours.

Just because ArbCom didn’t make a decision about this doesn’t mean there wasn’t any problem. The initial arbitration ruling about a series of articles often doesn’t address every single aspect of the conflict related to them, and the reason for that is just because ArbCom doesn’t have time to deal with everything at once. To go with another example of this that I’m sure you remember, several people brought up during the case that User:Ferahgo_the_Assassin shares an IP address with me, and that my topic ban should therefore apply to her also, but she was not topic banned during the case. My topic ban wasn’t applied to her until around two months after the case closed, by NuclearWarfare under the discretionary sanctions. If you think that ArbCom not ruling on something during the initial case means that there’s no issue worth ruling on, then you would have to also think that there was no justification to extend my topic ban to Ferahgo, and I know you don’t think that. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the details may be, the common feature is that 2over0 applied a ban that provoked a public outcry that in turn led to the lifting of the ban. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC).

(ec) Captain Occam's block and conditional unblock by 2over0 and his later conduct during the ArbCom case—a day after GWH removed 2over0's unblocking conditions stating, "This is not an invitation to resume any disruptive behaviors"—were discussed explicitly in the ArbCom finding. Ferahgo the Assassin was topic banned on October 7, one and a half months after the close of the case on August 25 (not three as initally stated by Captain Occam [14]). Mathsci (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

2over0's response

• I've asked 2over0 to say here whether he's willing not to use the tools again in relation to climate change and connected articles/editors. And obviously not to use them again in relation to Collect. That would go some way to resolving this. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Yes. I voluntarily withdrew from the area half a year ago, and there was enough discussion and concern during the ArbCom case to convince me to make my withdrawal permanent. Glenn Beck does not at present appear to be covered by the climate change probation (nor should it be unless he has made some significant statements about the issue). I am not sure what position is being ascribed to me at that article, but I will recuse myself from it and closely related articles as well - we have enough admins that my absence should not be noticed. Climate change editors is a bit more nebulous, but I will recuse myself from any issue involving an editor I know to be involved in that family of articles. If I did not know already but a due diligence check of their recent contributions reveals non-trivial (i.e. anything except recent changes patrol) climate change related edits, I will let someone else handle it. I will consider myself bound by WP:INVOLVED with respect to Collect (talk · contribs). May I respectfully suggest that a Request for comment be initiated if this does not sufficiently resolve the issue? If it is more complex, then the discussion could benefit from the more structured format. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for agreeing to that; I think it will help a lot. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This would be a satisfactory resolution of the matter. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC).

ANI isn't RFC/U or User talk:2over0

Sorry for pointing this obvious fact out. I feel obliged to mention it though. Is there any administrative action left to consider here? Looks like there isn't. Is there any reason why this thread should not be archived and discussion be held elsewhere? NW (Talk) 05:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I would support closing this thread and continuing the discussion in an RFC/U. I don’t feel that it’s my call to decide whether an RFC should happen or not, though. It ought to be up to Collect, and the other editors who’ve objected to 2over0’s block of Collect. Do any of them think an RFC/U is appropriate? --Captain Occam (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Not unless there's evidence of a continuing pattern and continual failure to recognize error. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-free images

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

This discussion hasn't generated much beyond some bickering lately, before that started, it seems clear that consensus is that the use of the logos in question was inappropriate and that Delta's removal of them is in line with policy. Nothing further for admins to do. --Jayron32 05:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

---

An editor has accused me of uploading non-free images to the Conservatism article. However, all I have done is reverse his removal of links to logos of Conservative parties which exist on Wikipedia. If these logos should not exist here then the editor should challenge the logo files, e.g. this one. If the image files were removed of course there would be no reason to challenge individual files. Could editors please provide opinions. TFD (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Please note I did not accuse you of uploading anything, rather I left you a notice {{uw-nonfree}} about usage of non-free media. The images you are using fail WP:NFC numbers 3,8,10. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

See WP:LOGO - usually it is acceptable to use a low-resolution copyrighted logo in an article about the organization itself, but not elsewhere. Use in that article would require a separate detailed statement of fair use. As Δ says, those images fail the criteria for non-free images unless the organization has specifically released their logo or it is for some other reason not covered by copyright. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

<side note to 2over0> Just a suggestion avoid the term fair use, our standards for inclusion of non-free media is a lot more strict. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with Delta that the use of non-free logos of conservative organisations is not required in this article. Take a reread of our non-free content criteria; what the logos look like essentially doesn't matter- one could easily understand the topic without seeing them. Furthermore, they didn't even have attempts at non-free content usage rationales for that use on the image pages, which is required by NFCC#10c. The Four Deuces, you reverted the removal of the files despite the fact they still unquestionably failed the non-free content criteria; I appreciate that you may not have been fully aware of the NFCC, but that's all the more reason to avoid edit warring on the subject. I don't think there's much more to be said here- The Four Deuces, is there anything else? J Milburn (talk) 03:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

User Δ is not accusing you of uploading the image, but simply of inappropriately using an image that someone else uploaded. If you want to use the copyrighted image at Conservatism, you would need to have a separate Fair Use rationale written for that specific article. The fact that the image is already used on Wikipedia in one place under Fair Use doesn't give us free license to use it wherever and however we want. It is only legally usable in the specific context that the Fair Use rationale describes. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I must disagree with this, you are partially correct, every use must have a rationale, however just because you have a rationale doesnt mean the use is valid. Please refer to the non-free media policy for details. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If the logo of the Conservative Party of Canada is uploaded to Wikipedia and available for that article then why can it not be linked to the Conservatism article? TFD (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Every separate usage of a non-free image must meet our deliberately strict non-free content criteria. The fact that an image is used elsewhere on Wikipedia is not usually relevant. J Milburn (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, if it is appropriate to use the logo for an article about a conservative party, how could it not be appropriate to use the same logo for an aricle about conservative parties? TFD (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Just copy and paste the fair use rationale, changing "Conservative Party of Canada" to "Conservatism", and changing the "Purpose" section to explain why you want to use it in Conservatism. I don't see any reason why the image wouldn't satisfy WP:NFC if you just wrote a new rationale for it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Yes, you can simply the editing of a new rationale that way, but you still need to justify the use of the logo on a page that is not about the corporation. 99.9% of the time, this is not appropriate because there's no discussion about the logo itself and it fails to add anything critical for understanding the article (see WP:NFCC#8) --MASEM (t) 04:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• TFD, you are wrong on a number of fronts. First, WP:NFCC #10c is explicit. As explained by others above, EACH use of a non-free item must have a non-free rationale for that use. So for example, File:Logo-cdenv.png has a rationale for Christian Democratic and Flemish. Having a rationale satisfies #10c. NONE of the images you were attempting to add to the article has rationales for use on Conservatism. Now, having a rationale satisfies #10c, but it doesn't satisfy every other element of WP:NFCC policy, which also must be satisfied. Adding 11 non-free logos to this article as you were attempting to do fails WP:NFCC #1 (the logos are replaceable by text referring to the parties in question), #3 (far too much use to be consider "minimal", and #8 (adds nothing of significance to the article except logo decoration). @Jrtayloriv you are quite wrong that simply adding a rationale for wherever you want to use it makes it acceptable to use it there. That's utterly false. Δ was utterly correct in removing the logos, and correct in his defense of the removals. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  • When it comes to an article like Conservatism, having the logo right next to the name of the party is not needed and is not supported by NFCC. The main article is fine, but if you need an icon to represent the Canadian party, use the free Canadian flag image. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That is a bad idea, as it would imply that the whole country votes conservative. Which we don't. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 07:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Now that I seen the article, the logos will definitely not work (and neither will my idea). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yea, per MOS:FLAG it would probably be a bad idea to use country flag images as replacements. There really is no need to illustrate the individual sections, unless one considered any of the lead people w/ free images involved to be intereesting to include. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hammersoft and Δ are correct. Non-free images should only have limited use in a few articles (usually only one) and need to have a separate and justifiable rationale for each separate use. Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
• Jrtayloriv, seriously, what the hell? If you're not great on the NFCC, that's fine, but perhaps it would be best not to comment in threads like this? J Milburn (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

First off, I'll point out that what I said has been mischaracterized as "Writing a rationale is a sufficient condition for use of non-free images." What I was saying in reality is "Writing a rationale is a necessary condition for use of non-free images.", and I gave helpful advice on how to quickly copy/paste the rationale from one article to another to save some time (never claiming that this was a good idea to do if you weren't going to write a valid rationale). I said that if he wanted to use the logos in that article, then I thought this would be reasonable per WP:NFC. After Hammersoft explained how he felt they violated NFC, I struck my comments, because I became aware of some potential problems. Some of Hammersoft's claims were dubious (i.e. "replaceable by text"), some debatable ("far too much use to be considered minimal"), and some of it was reasonable ("Adds nothing of significance"). I didn't see a problem with the use of the image in that article before (assuming he wrote a valid rationale for it), and now I do. That is "what the hell" is going on. So I suppose my question is: Considering that me and you have never had a conflict before, "what the hell" made you decide to use the type of tone that you just used, instead of discussing this in a more civil manner? (Example: "Jrtayloriv: Please read up on WP:NFC a bit more before giving advice, because some of the things you said were not very good suggestions.") -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't me who said that, but it sounds like perfectly good advice delivered in a reasonable manner to me. J Milburn (talk) 11:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see, that was an example of how I should be typing. The fact that, after you were told you were wrong (comment dated 03:27, 8 January 2011 in response to your comment dated 03:24, 8 January 2011), you came back and gave the same advice (04:00, 8 January 2011)? That very much implies all that is needed is the rationale (whether that's what you intended or not) but the fact you at that time couldn't "see any reason why the image wouldn't satisfy WP:NFC if you just wrote a new rationale for it" suggests your understanding of the NFCC is a little lacking... As for my "incivility", if my advice that "if you're not great on the NFCC, that's fine, but perhaps it would be best not to comment in threads like this?" is incivility, then shoot me now. J Milburn (talk) 11:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• After you were told you were wrong, you came back and gave the same advice -- No, after I was told that a mischaracterization of what I was saying was wrong, I came back and gave the same advice. When someone pointed out something that indicated that what I had actually said was wrong, and cited specific (albeit faulty in most cases) policy-based reasons, I reconsidered.
• the fact you at that time couldn't "see any reason why the image wouldn't satisfy WP:NFC if you just wrote a new rationale for it" suggests your understanding of the NFCC is a little lacking -- Perhaps. Or maybe it implies that I interpreted the policy differently.
• As for my "incivility", if my advice that [advice with incivil tone removed] is incivility, then shoot me now. -- You conveniently left out your preface of "Jrtayloriv, seriously, what the hell?", which sets a very different tone for the interaction than the one you just mentioned. And leaving that sort of thing out is what I was suggesting you do, so I'm glad that you agree, and don't feel that you need to be shot.

Anyhow, it seems like this issue has been resolved, and the discussion should be closed and archived. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

That's incivility? I think you may be a tiny bit hypersensitive... J Milburn (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's uncivil and unnecessarily abrasive to preface disagreements with "seriously, what the hell?". Try to put into words what the purpose of including that statement is, and you'll see why (although, I'm fairly certain you already know). I'm not "hypersensitive" to it, and it doesn't affect me emotionally. I just think it's silly and unnecessary, and interferes with collegial discussion, and in tense situations has the potential to escalate conflicts for no benefit. Anyhow, I'm done here. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If there's anything that "interferes" with discussion like this, it's the misinformed "advice" given by people like you. I used the phrase to point out that not only were you wrong (for all intents and purposes, you ignored it when someone told you that...) but you were in completely the wrong ball park. You didn't respond well to more "polite" criticism, so I gave you firmer criticism. Not unreasonable. If you're done, stop answering. J Milburn (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Concerns about the user's approach

 Done here. See other page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Beyond the fair-user debates that Beta/Delta has constantly gotten himself into for years now, there's a far more disturbing trend, and that is the question of competence; or to put it another way, "not paying attention to what he's doing." Not once, but twice recently, I have had to back out bogus deletions he posted for pictures in an article that had been renamed and someone simply forgot to redirect the fair use statements for the pictures. Then I see another user's complaint on B/D's talk page which criticizes specific points and characterizes his editing as "sloppy", "meat-clever" and "just plain amateurish". Beta/Delta's generally belligerence is the reason I don't even bother with fair use uploads any more. But this bull-in-a-china-shop approach he's taking since being "unshackled" needs to be looked into, as it's potentially a far worse problem than mere fair-use debates. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion at WP:Administrators' Noticeboard#Trying to defuse a problem with User:Δ and NFCC#10c removals. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Profanity and admission that user will completely ignore all wikipedia rules

Arky91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made some very disturbing comments on my talk page, here, following my warnings to him about on his talk page about adding unsourced information. He's used a highly offensive term about black people in addition to tell me to fuck sources and articles. Plus he has a conflict on interest in editing Polow da Don as apparently he works with him! -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

editors with blatant disregard for rules and those who cannot be WP:CIVIL to others have no place in the community that is wikipedia. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked them. We don't need users who act like that. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I've just requested on your talk page... can that edit bu him to my talk page be Rd2ed? (hidden/deleted) -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, that sort of language sounds suprisingly like Hitler's talk of how Jews had no place in the "German racial community."see here. Now Arky91 has been singled out, stripped of his rights, and evacuated out of Wikipedia with nary anyone speaking in his defense as a person. Well, dammit, I will stand up for Arky! He was a good man, and a good editor. He deserved better than to just be summarily "indefinately" blocked like some poor Jew placed into "protective custody" indefinately by the Nazis... Rettien (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You've just compared another user to Hitler and the Nazis; I'd suggest you retract the above statement. GiantSnowman 23:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm am grossly offended by Rettien's comments. ... tut just because rules were broken and action taken I don't deserve to be treated with disrespect. First I was called an offensive term for black people, then I was told to fuck wikipedia sources and now I've been compared to Hitler. Erg! Can I suggest Rettien is warned for that comment? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Do I even have to point out that this is a sock? HalfShadow 23:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I did suspect that might be the case. Block and tag as such? or SPI? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You ain't blocking or tagging anyone just yet, here in America people have things like due process. This isn't the Third Reich. You just can't "disappear" anyone you dont think fits into your vaunted community of the master race... Annanovis (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC).

• Both User:Rettien and User:Annanovis now blocked - troll sockpuppets of somebody. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

How very boring and predictable. I have to say we used to attract a more sophisticated class of trolls. Going straight for the nazi accusations is just weak. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You know... I used to remember those days when you had to file SPI reports because there was actually a sense of ambiguity or uncertainty. But these days..! -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 03:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Godwin's Law on speed? --Blackmane (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I like how he says "You just can't 'disappear' anyone you don't think fits..." just before the admins indeed "disappear" him. Alas, Beeblebrox is right, that kind of troll is becoming the Arky-type. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking at CheckUser, Arky91 is  Unrelated to both Annanovis and Rettien. Looking at both technical and behavioral evidence, Annanovis is  Confirmed as banned user Wiki brah (talk · contribs) while Rettien is  Likely. –MuZemike 10:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Destinero

I have blocked Destinero (talk · contribs) for violating his LGBT-related limited editing restriction, for 24 hours. Block message. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The IPs 84.42.249.213 (talk · contribs) and 89.103.77.233 (talk · contribs) appear to have been used as IP socks of Destinero, based on editing patterns. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

As the user has not been anon-editing during his block (and he is not at the time of writing totally topic-banned from LGBT parenting articles), there is nothing wrong with him editing the articles as an IP. However, he may not violate his restrictions as an IP, and should he do so again his main account and any IPs should be blocked. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, wide IP range. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Excessive block on user:Binksternet

I was rather disconcerted to see that Binksternet (talk · contribs) has just been blocked for three months by Xavexgoem (talk · contribs).

The backstory seems to be ongoing content disputes on a number of Iran-related articles, not a topic or articles I'm familiar with. There has been a past 2 week block in December for this, per this WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive657#Kurdo777_reverting_Binksternet, resulting in a two-week block that was reversed a few days later on Binksternet's offer of a voluntary 1RR restriction.

The new block, six times any previous block, appears to be as a result of changes to Prostitution in Iran and this edit sequence: a single reversion (labelled as such, per agreement) followed by a couple of minor copyedits. That was a response to this deletion, taking a 23k article down to 3k - always an eyebrow raiser. The deletion, of content which could be seen as less than favourable to Iran, was done three times by User:علی_ویکی over two days and reverted, by two different editors, not just Binksternet. Although User:علی_ویکی has recently been warned over their edits, I can see no mention of their repeated deletions here, and certainly no three month blocks!

Clearly this is a result of a content dispute: the crux of it relates to the practice of Nikah mut'ah, the ironically-named institution of the Chastity House, and their relation to prostitution. Note that this is not a debate over the interpretation of Nikah mut'ah and whether it is prostitution or not (that's a cultural matter far beyond WP:ANI's remit). Rather the question is whether a referenced and balanced discussion of the topic should be included in the prostitution article, or whether it should be removed entirely and not mentioned. The balance of the disputed content is arguable, as such things rightly are, except that the detail of the content itself isn't even being addressed here, it's merely being removed en masse. Any semblance of NPOV here would, whatever one's position on prostitution and Nikah mut'ah, seem to require some mention of it (with our usual difficult hurdle of careful neutrality), not merely this blanket removal.

I cannot see justification for this block, I cannot see justification based on this reversion, I cannot see any justification for the length of this block and I'm concerned that edit warriors on the other side of this argument aren't even being warned for it, let alone blocked with this severity.

A disclosure of interest: I have no past involvement with the Iranian articles. My only real contact with Binksternet has been at Coanda-1910, an article of equally problematic nationalism. On that article, I didn't find Binksternet's edits to merely be beyond reproach (despite immense provocation), but their rewrite of a difficult article to be an exemplar of how to achieve comprehensive neutrality amongst bias, vested interests and conflicting sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to know why the jump from the previous block of 2 weeks in mid-Decemeber to a 3-month block. If the normal progression would have been 1 month, what egregious factor was present to justify the skip to a significantly loner block? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm tempted to archive this right now because of the lack of any attempt to discuss this with Xave before coming here. May I ask why you didn't do that? NW (Talk) 02:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Their talk page announces that they're too lazy to use other editor's talk pages, and this seems the appropriate forum to query the actions of an admin. As my action here is, put simply, to accuse an admin of being trigger-happpy, when they have demonstrated the ability and willingness to block editors for three months, I'm rather reluctant to do it on their talk page, at risk of receiving such a block myself. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm If Xave blocked you for questioning his block, you would have an easy case for desysop-by-motion at ArbCom. That...isn't likely to happen. And he never said that he wouldn't respond—he said that he would respond on his talk page. NW (Talk) 02:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm yourself! I have previously been blocked by an admin for questioning their blocking of another user. Whilst they were indeed later de-sysopped for another matter, the response of other admins was that "I'd asked for it" by questioning their judgement. So please don't tell me that all admins are paragons of impartiality. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it would've been best if this stayed open. If it's a fear that an editor could be blocked for questioning an admin, then AN/I is really the only option. Can't come to AN/I if you're blocked. Xavexgoem (talk) 12:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a copy/paste of my response on my talk page. Please review my actions. Xavexgoem (talk) 11:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I saw that the AN/I thread was archived. I'll explain why I did what I did:

• His most recent block was for 2 weeks. He was warned against tendentious editing in general, and tendentious editing in Iranian political articles specifically. He made a compromise on his behavior, so I unblocked him early on good faith.
• His main antagonist, Kurdo, reported that Binksternet was then hounding him at Kurdish people. I didn't pay any mind since they hate each other (for all intents and purposes).
• Then Kurdo tells me that Binksternet followed him to Prostitution in Iran. When Kurdo asked Binksternet about why he was editing that page, Binksternet says he followed User:Munci from Irredentism and saw that he had also edited Prostitution in Iran, and that it was a coincidence. Here's the thing:

• Munci made his last contributions to Prostitution in Iran more than 1,250 of his edits ago and more than half a year ago.
• It is exceptionally unlikely that Binksternet read Irredentism, then selected Mundi in that page's history amongst other editors, followed the contribs of that prolific an editor over so many of his edits, then by happenstance found Prostitution in Iran and edited it not 4 hours after Kurdo edited it for his first time.

• In other words: He was hounding Kurdo, and offered an implausible rational for how they happened to be editing the same article for the first time in such a short time-frame. I now have no reason to believe that Binksternet followed Kurdo to Kurdish people with good intentions, and I have no reason to believe that Binksternet will stop if he's unblocked.
• Wikihounding is unacceptable. It is distracting, a huge breach of trust, and ultimately harmful to the project.

Finally, this is his 6th block. He knew better. Xavexgoem (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, this has nothing to do with the edits made to Prostitution in Iran. I hope that's clear. Xavexgoem (talk) 11:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Clarification and timeline:

• Kurdo and Binksternet have a poor history largely from a difference of opinion. So, content. But then it becomes behavioral:

1. Kurdo, for the first time, edits Prostitution in Iran on Jan 3, 21:31 UTC
2. Binksternet, for the first time on that article, edits its talk page on Jan 4, 01:01 UTC
3. Kurdo confronts Bink about it (here)
4. Bink replies that he followed Munci's contribs from the article Irredentism (here). He would have had to go through some 1,250 edits spanning 6 months to find Munci's contribution to the Prostitution article([15]. Despite the improbability of following Munci for some 1,250 edits, he then edits the article just 4 hours after Kurdo does.

That's an improbability on top of an improbability. Why would Binksternet lie about how he got to that article? Xavexgoem (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

My fairly substantial response is (as ordered) at User_talk:Xavexgoem#WP:AN.2FI.23Excessive_block_on_user:Binksternet Andy Dingley (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll copy and paste the exchange. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Exchange between Xavexgoem and Andy Dingley

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would agree with much of what you say above: particularly the past accusations of edit-warring and the comment about Kurdo777 (talk · contribs) that "they hate each other". I would support (most reluctantly, because this situation is never good) the December block and also the December unblock with the 1RR restriction. Yet this wasn't a topic ban. We have editors who clearly have some subject interest in Iran, and who were told to change their editing behaviour, but not told (almost surprisingly) to change their subjects. What can one expect such editors to do, other than to edit articles on Iran? In particular, editing articles on other Iranian topics, and carefully following the restrictions agreed, would seem to be the sort of result that we'd hoped would happen, given the conditions agreed. You have said that this is "nothing to do with the edits made to Prostitution in Iran." — yet that's the only edited article you link on the block notice! I don't follow your logic on Irredentism, probably because I'm unfamiliar with the backstory - but shouldn't we be judging the edits here, not trying to construct complex reasonings for why they went to particular articles? Such constructs are both shaky, and should also be simply irrelevant. So what of the other edits, edits so problematic that they warrant a 3 month block? Looking at Abadan Crisis timeline I would have to support Binksternet's position here: sources that are of evidently indistinguishable reliability (Although I am no scholar on this area) disagree. In which case, our neutrality requirement is, AIUI, to include both sides, suitably worded to indicate that they disagree and that we are witholding judgement on backing either. These (unless I'm missing some edits somewhere) are either what Binksternet was adding, or something so damned close to it that I can't see the gap, and there's certainly no discrepancy to warrant this severe block. There's also the issue of even-handedness. Some of these edits are probably not the most neutral ever, and may even justify their blocks. Yet it takes two to edit war. You described the relationship with kurdo777 (talk · contribs) as they hate each other, a reciprocal dislike, not one-sided. Abadan Crisis log is of ping-pong reverts by both sides, yet where are the warnings and blocks aginst those other editors? Reversion tennis looks bad on both sides, but why is only one being taken to task for it? Again, as I understand our ideal neutrality behaviour in such a case, we should include both sides' sources and leave them both displayed, but unjudged - which is the action Binksternet took with edits such as this. Edit summaries of "Conclusive photographic and scholarly evidence" mean nothing of the sort - the photograph has no provable date, there are "scholars" on both sides. This might not be the greatest editing ever, but it's caused by two sides, not one. We're also I'm sure both familiar with editors who readily agree to such bans, then fail to follow them (block away!). Yet this just didn't happen here: I can't see it stepping outside the very careful bounds of the 1RR restriction agreed in December. Maybe that restriction wasn't the right choice, maybe (not my view, but I can see its merits) there needed to be a topic ban too. However this is the restriction that was agreed - it seems strange to agree such a restriction, then block anyway even when it was observed. Comments from others such as, "The whole thing turned from a content dispute into outright harassment a long time ago" are hardly helpful. If it was so bad a long time ago, then the block should have been imposed a long time ago, and if it wasn't, then the chance was missed and we don't leave such Damocletian blocks hanging over the heads of editors indefinitely. Blocks are protective, not punitive. We judge the edits, not the editor. It is simply wrong to block Binksternet in January for edits that were not in January, when his edits in January met the agreed restrictions. As to "this is his 6th block", then perhaps it is so - and as we seem to have a practice of gradually escalating blocks, I'm particularly surprised to see an escalation from 2 weeks suddenly to 3 months. Finally, collateral damage. Coanda-1910 has already seen an edit that I knew was coming and could practically have written for them. A persistent POV-pushing editor undoubtedly saw this block as an opportunity to reinsert their favourite claim. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC) He was blocked for hounding Kurdo, whom he has a poor history with. It has nothing to do with the edits he made. What he had said to Kurdo when confronted was that he was at the page Irredentism and looked at its history. Near the top is User:Munci. He says he followed hundreds of Munci's contribs and that's how he found Prostitution in Iran (and happened to edit it just 4 hours later after Kurdo first edited it). Forget about it being about Iran: this could have been Binksternet following Kurdo to List of Splorges in Spleeland (forgive me, I'm not creative), then Binksternet saying that the reason he was there was because he was reading George Washington (totally unrelated, as irredentism is), checked its history, found User:Arbitrary, went through hundreds of his contribs, and happened to land on the list article four hours after Kurdo did. Then I'd block him for hounding Kurdo, like I did. Again: not about Iran. As you'll read below, I did skip the 1 month progression. He can always appeal. Finally, the block was justified. You may disagree with the length, but the block did need to happen. If it were some other admin, it may have been 1 month, it may have been indef. At any rate, neither that other admin nor I am responsible for the "collateral damage". If he cared enough, this wouldn't have happened. Xavexgoem (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC) He didn't edit on Spleeland though, but on Iran, an area of clear past interest to both of them. I still can't see this as convincing evidence of malice. As to blocking for past history, then I see that as just wrong. That's what December's block was for - and his actions since then, as far as we can robustly prove them, have met the restrictions agreed in December. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC) How is the evidence not clear? What are the chances that Binksternet actually made such a detour through hundreds of an unrelated editor's contribs and happens to land on an article that his long-time antagonist just edited for the first time four hours prior? Is it not more likely that Binksternet followed Kurdo's contribs? And if so, why did he lie about it? Xavexgoem (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC) I haven't seen this "lie", or link to such a claim, so it's hard to comment. How did Kurdo find it after all? Maybe it's just an Iranian article with a controversial high-traffic revert on it, and they all landed there. What about Aliwiki's edits here? Maybe it was through that route. I don't believe such a case is provable with any certainty either way, certainly not to the level necessary to justify blocks of this size. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC) You're just not listening. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Thankyou for posting the relevant diff, I've now found it, which makes this discussion rather clearer. Before accusing other editors of "not listening" though, I would please ask you to remember that most of us have no past history with the Iranian articles and the editors concerned. You might recall a comment in an obscure thread, I have to go and search for it. You're right, it seems unlikely. I suspect (as wild supposition appears to be allowable today) that Binksternet had actually followed Aliwiki and simply mis-remembered how he found the article (Maybe you might, but I know I don't keep navigation logs to this level). Or he did follow Kurdo's edits, which still isn't a proscribed act. Even if he told deliberate lies about what he did afterwards, not even that is something that we regard as warranting three month blocks (many examples passim). I'm seeing a lot of edits here. I'm seeing some edits to controversial content from Binksternet which I'd still regard as acceptable, even under his constrained editing. I'm also seeing ones like this from Kurdo, throwing around wild accusations of editors acting in collusion, American political bias, spite and the usual wikivitriol - whilst at the same time it's Kurdo who's removing good cites to Iranian sources presenting an opposing view. Now please, tell me again (and thanks, I am hard of hearing as it happens) which of these editors is the one warranting the 3 month block, whilst the other doesn't even rate a warning? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC) The one doing the hounding. But so long as you're supposing things despite the evidence, I guess no answer will do. It would have been enough for Binksternet to leave Kurdo alone. But, again, so long as you're supposing things despite the evidence, that won't do either. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC) So is "the one doing the hounding" making this edit, or this edit? The same content dispute, one editor putting a reasonably drawn case up for mediation, the other foaming and frothing to lobby an admin. What did we expect and require Binksternet to do after the December unblock with restrictions? Did he comply and behave according to that? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC) I'm not suggesting Kurdo's any different. But he didn't hound Binksternet to a page he had just recently edited, and then lied about how he got there. If Kurdo did, then he should be blocked. I'm not playing tit-for-tat, here. I saw Binksternet hound Kurdo, I blocked Binksternet. He can appeal. I suggest you take all concerns to AN/I so I know what the rest of the community thinks. I may have been over-wrought, but if so, not by much. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Question re your comment above I didn't want to bring this up on the incident noticeboard as I thought it could end up with a lot of digression to no great purpose. My apologies if that's not the way its done. You said "and I have no reason to believe that Binksternet will stop if he's unblocked." Which I can read as either 1) they won't learn if the block is shortened, or 2) an indefinite block is the answer. Could/would you clarify the matter for me? Thank you. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC) I didn't word that too well. Maybe I should say "I have no reason to believe he'll stop by a block alone, but he needed to be blocked". Indef is stupidly excessive, and would've lead to AN/I threads (sigh). 1 month is something that you can sit out, and given the circumstances and his block log, 3 months seemed the better option. If he just sits it out, there's no guarantee that he'll come back a better editor. There's no guarantee for 3 months, either, but it gives more opportunity and incentive for him to make a good appeal. I hope he appeals, because he's a good editor otherwise. Just to reiterate: he knew he shouldn't have done this, he did it anyway, and then he lied about it. So yes, I skipped the 1 month progression. Xavexgoem (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC) (slip this in here - thanks for the clarification. 82.70.225.100 (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)) I'm still unclear as to what the "what" is. You pasted a message about Prostitution in Iran, then claimed that wasn't relevant. The edits over the 1953 coup, a past problem area, don't seem especially problematic. I cannot see any robust evidence for a claim of wikihounding when it's over two articles about Iran which have every likelihood of simply being shared areas of interest. Besides which, is wikihounding of itself even a blockable offence? Take a look at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive662#User:SergeWoodzing_and_User:Pieter_Kuiper_yet_again, where one of the most persistent hounddogs in the business gets away with it and the editor reporting is warned for "crying wolf". Now Kuiper has been hugely disruptive at Commons in the past, somewhere that's usually light on drama, and it's about as clear-cut as "hounding" can be. Yet if this ANI is a precedent, following and overlapping is no crime, until the edit itself becomes problematic (presumably then it would be taken account of in the response). Andy Dingley (talk) 13:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC) The article is not relevant. The hounding is, but I do need to say at which articles this was taking place. I don't see it as acceptable that an editor hounds another and then gets away with it. How is the evidence not clear? What are the chances that Binksternet actually made such a detour through hundreds of an unrelated editor's contribs and happens to land on an article that his long-time antagonist just edited for the first time four hours prior? Is it not more likely that Binksternet followed Kurdo's contribs? And if so, why did he lie about it? Xavexgoem (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC) "more likely" just isn't enough, when you're talking on 3 month blocks to editors who are otherwise making an evident effort to comply with previously agreed restrictions. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC) By more "more likely", I mean "99.99%" positive. And it's not like because he made restrictions on himself he's free to hound editors in the same topic area with the same editor and get a new block progression. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Block appealed

Binksternet has appealed the block with a lengthy and detailed explanation, clarifiing the situation and his intentions rather well. Any admin considering the appeal should avoid a WP:TLDR temptation and read the whole thing. I think it warrants a reduction in the block length. I will abstain from taking action since I have already expressed my personal support for Binksternet. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• I think at this point, no admin should unblock pending the outcome of this discussion. Since this matter is before the community, it doesn't seem right for an admin to act unilaterally. That having been said, I support the block based on the evidence, but think that the block length should be reduced to one month. --Jayron32 03:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• I am the only administrator who has closely followed the various disputes involving Binksternet. I fully support the block and its length. This is Binksternet's fifth block in just six months. Each block, he has made empty promises to reform his behavior, only to return to gaming the system following his unblocking. I see no reason to assume good faith with him anymore - he is neither a newbie nor an uninformed editor. He knew very well what he is doing, and simply refuses to get the point. Even his appeal is full of deceptive, misleading, and untrue statements. The content-related discussions are completely irrelevant to the essence of the block. The main issue is Binksternet's harassment of another editor who he has a dispute with. He has done this by singling him out and joining discussions on unrelated pages in which he has had no prior interest or history in order to repeatedly confront the other editor. All of this behavior appears to be with the aim of giving irritation, annoyance and distress to the other editor. This is a classic example of WP:HOUNDING. His disruptive behavior coupled with his long history of edit warring and continued tendentious editing is sufficient enough to warrant a three month block. Khoikhoi 06:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• I am not convinced that "following another user to an article" constitutes valid evidence of "wikihounding" in the first place. People follow other people to articles all the time. I do it too. As WP:HOUND itself clearly indicates, there may be very valid reasons for doing so -- for instance, perceived persistent patterns of problematic edits of another user that are in need of correction. As it now stands, the evidence adduced for this particular block consists of only a single instance of editing an article after somebody else. In the absence of clearer evidence that (a) the pattern of "following" was clearly motivated more by a desire to thwart the other user than by concerns over content, and/or (b) that the edits were in themselves highly problematic (and more so than those of the opponent in question), I see little basis for this block, and certainly none for a block of this length. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• WP:HA#NOT is quite specific on this point, "However, there is an endemic problem on Wikipedia of giving "harassment" a much broader and inaccurate meaning which encompasses, in some cases, merely editing the same page as another user."

To claim that Binksternet's editing at Prostitution in Iran thus qualifies as hounding we would have to show that it was also either uncivil, outside good faith, a deliberate attempt to escalate a dispute, and was also not otherwise defensible as an attempt to enforce policy, including WP:NPOV. Yet the actions of those editors in conflict with Binksternet is to discount the multiple Islamic jurists cited in his addition — an action that only makes sense from the highly POV stance of seeing this topic as an embarrassment to Iran. One might yet disagree with Binksternet, but one cannot claim his actions to be other than a GF attempt to defend NPOV, with robust sourcing behind it. He might even have been wrong, but we are still required to AGF of editors whose actions are compatible with its broadest scope. This was an editor under a 1RR restriction, which they observed, with no topic ban and no specific interaction bans, who acted as their judgement saw necessary to carefully defend neutrality, one of our highest principles. AGF exists so that we do not block editors for differing in judgement with them, and this is just such a case. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Similar to Jayron, I support the block based on the evidence above. The frequency of disruption from this user is very problematic and I don't see it changing anytime soon. The fact that this is yet another ethnic/nationalist area of disruption make me think that even more. The only way I would support shortening this block would be with a topic ban. I should point out that I have previously blocked this editor. Toddst1 (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Unlike Toddst1, I see Bink changing. He will make a strong appeal, he will be unblocked, and he will keep his promises. I have no doubt about it; he's done it before. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: I've reduced to 1 month, per the consensus here. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

What consensus?? Toddst1 (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus that the block was too long. However, it does look as though Binksternet may be willing to go along with some kind of unblock agreement. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Me, Andy Dingley, Jayron, Fut Perf, Amatulic. I think keeping it at 3 months would've been fine, too. It's a minor point. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

attempt to tone user down

I need someone to ask Frannamax to tone down his threat to block me. He wants to block me for signing with a comedy style line at the end of my signature. This line is causing no harm, he just doesn't like it that's all, i can tell. I'm going to totaly ignore Cuddlyable 3's objection due to his problom with excessive pranking. I can tell by the way he posts, having known a prankster for 8 years. Frannamax needs to let it go, it's my signature, not his. It's not like inna is saying "Hey frannamax, honey, can you get Nissae Isen's Man to stop saying that? thanks." so he's just saying that because he himself doesn't like it. That's no reason to block me, and claiming it is against pollicy is bull sh**, whether you believe that or not. Please tone him down a little, thanks and regards, N.I.M. I miss you nissae! Elena Apostoleanu go behind the line. 02:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Read my post on your talk page again. That is not at all why I have warned you that I will block you. Franamax (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Franamax (talk · contribs) and Cuddlyable3 (talk · contribs) notified. GiantSnowman 02:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Good, This block threat has to be canceled though, I mean over a signature? come on! N.I.M. I miss you nissae! Elena Apostoleanu go behind the line. 02:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You need to drop your "freedom of speech" argument. The bill of rights does not apply to wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Well florida doesn't apply to me as i am canada not florida. Anyway, your stupid asking me to not use that comedy line at the bottom of my signature is like saying, Hey baseball bugs, don't use "What's up dock " at the bottom of your signature, because it was often said by Mell Blanc. Same old Sh**, different case. If florida doesn't like it, florida can freeze. That's saying something as I was in Florida last year. N.I.M. I miss you nissae! Elena Apostoleanu go behind the line. 02:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Canada or Florida or Timbuktu don't matter. There is no such thing as "freedom of speech" at wikipedia. And if a concensus of admins was that I should alter my signature, I would do so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It isn't a concensis of admins on me, two users mearly don't like it and one has admitted that the comedy line is allright, so no reason to press the matter forword, I would like a block threat is canceled type of message on my talk page, because it is just a signature, like yours. You say what's up dock? and i say Elena Apostoleanu go behind the line, same thing, comedy line in our signatures. There, we found a common ground. I bet floridans would agree with me that it's just a signature. I make reference to it because in one of your pollicies it says that this is run by the state law of florida. But i'm sure floridans agree with me, as do people around the world do. My signature is fine, Right florida? right everyone? Please let a floridan say "It's cool" or something, I mean i have nothing against them. I mearly am saying that i coulden't care less about whether the state law has something against my signature, even if it did it woulden't apply in Manitoba Canada, because though we may have similar laws, they're not exact clones of eachother right? For the record, i do want some floridan support, to show that i'm not against them. N.I.M. I miss you nissae! Elena Apostoleanu go behind the line. 02:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

My impression, NIM, is that you have been persistently failing to hear and accept the feedback you have been getting not just from Franamax but from a number of RD regulars on a number of points of conduct and content. I think Franamax's position is entirely reasonable at this point. I think Franamax and others have been exceptionally patient with your behavior over the past couple of months, and I think you should make every effort to understand what you are being told and why, and to modify your behavior here at wikipedia accordingly. WikiDao ☯ 03:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Get it straight my man, this has nothing to do with the law in Florida or anywhere else. This is a privately run website that makes it's own policies. If you come into my place of business, I can kick you out for any number of reasons. For example, let's say I sell children's toys and you are in my store loudly carrying on about how you got laid with some stripper the night before. I would ask you to be quiet, and if you didn't I would throw you out and tell you not to come back. It's nothing to do with the constitution as you are on private property. I'm not interfering with your rights to do whatever you want in a publicly-owned space or your own home, but we are each of us free to decide what we will and will not tolerate on our own property. Wikipedia is run by volunteers who uphold the policies established by our community. You break those rules, and you will be asked to stop. You keep it up and you will be blocked. If you want to change those rules that can be discussed, but there is no absolute right to free speech in a private place. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You keep citing laws and freedom of speech and such. Those are irrelevant. Wikipedia is a privately-owned website, and it can set its own rules. There is no freedom of speech on wikipedia; there is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia. It doesn't matter if you're in Canada, Florida or Jolly Old England. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, i said i want floridan support . Either way, that's still no reason for those objections on my signature. Users put messages at the bottom of their signatures all the time, and yes i understand it, that's how i see it, that they object to the name, and want to block me because of the comedy line, but that's just one user. The other was wondering about it, so i told them, then they go about saying they don't care and noone cares, which lead me to Cuddlyable's problom with excessive pranking. Why do yu sign that way, because of this, noone cares, i don't need to hear the background on it, then don't ask. kind of situation is going on with Cuddlyable. Don't sign that way it's against pollicy, no it isn't, reconsider, maybe it isn't but it is an existing person, tone it down, be less authoritative, fine, it's alright, good thanks. kind of thing is going on between Franamax and I. There, summarized with my messages and how i understand it. Now you know why i want that threat canceled, and how i know of cuddlyable's problom with excessive pranking. Whether it is true or not, that's still no reason to send an admin after me for signing that way. Baseball bugs signs "What's up dock", and i'm sure some don't like it, but i don't see one person asking why they are quoting something said by Mell Blanc, so i don't see the objection for a comedy style line "Elena Apostoleanu go behind the line", which is nothing major, it's just a comedy-like line, there's nothing wrong like Franamax said. So i don't see why you are not canceling that block threat. Please, I need a message from a Floridan who is on my side, Regards, N.I.M. I miss you nissae! Elena Apostoleanu go behind the line. 03:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Florida has nothing to do with it. And I've never had any complaints about my signature. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

@N.I.M.: I'd like to know what your purpose in being here on Wikipedia is. You have editied since mid-November, have accumulated 428 edits, and only 64 of those -- 15% -- are to articles. Most of the rest are to the Wikipedia domain(45%) and user talk pages (31%). This is not a social network, talk pages are there to facilitate the editing, and the Wikipedia domain to assist in the running of the place, neither are intended as chat rooms. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

At least he will depart AN/I after this discussion and not stalk it offering his opinion wherever it isn't required, like some people do. It is shocking sometimes the types that think to offer an opinion here, especially the ones who have been blocked multiple times over their career. Weakopedia (talk) 08:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My opinion is that you are behaving disruptively right now by excessively repeating the irrelevant and unsubstantiated claim about "Cuddlyable's problom with excessive pranking". This has nothing whatsoever to do with Cuddlyable3, please leave that user out of this discussion. WikiDao ☯ 03:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Kenney, it's none of your business what i'm here for, and WD. If someone asks me why i do something, then says that noone cares about the reason, that's standard prankster behavior, and having known a prankster for 8 years, i'm able to pick up on that. And again to Kenny, if i decide to tell you why i'm here, then i will, until then, don't ask, you'll get the same response. WD: Maybe Cuddlyable has little to do with it, but i did have reason for those comments. The disgussion is resolved, and why florida baseball bugs? because your pollicies are based off state law, and I feel if a floridan says "Enough, it is clear that Franamax is fine now, threat is canceled" then maybe it would get those who keep contradicting me to flash back to normal and not a "Let's gang up on N.I.M. hey everybody! Gang up on N.I.M.!" kind of a field. I feel this way because a good deal of posts have been against me here, on this thread, and I don't know if anyone here is getting my point. Are you? if so, could you summarize my point so I know you get it? i'll help you from there, and if you don't need to know it, then you have no reason, pollicy or not to say i'm doing wrong with a comedy line. Franamax says it's alright, and I just need proof that Ca3 is alright with it too, then it's going to be all right from there. Please find the point in my messages previous, and see if you understand it by sumarizing it. Like i said, i'll be happy to help if you need clairifications. that's what talk pages are for, communication. N.I.M. I miss you nissae! Elena Apostoleanu go behind the line. 03:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, if the community decides that you're not here to improve the encyclopedia, then the community has the power to prevent you from editing, as does every admin here, so I suggest that you might want to cut the crap, listen to what you're being told and start to contribute productively to the project. As Bugs implied, no one has the God-given right to edit here, and from what I've seen in your contributions, your edit summaries and on your talk page, you've really not contributed much -- certainly not enough to justify the attitude you're projecting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

@N.I.M. why do you want so much to post "Elena Apostoleanu go behind the line" ? You say it's a comedy style line, but do you think it goes on being funny every time you interrupt the work here with it? I hope you will read the comments [16] [17] I put on your page. I regret the need for my closing sentence which was: Just as singers have to be protected from over-obsessive fans, Wikipedia has to be protected from a person who blindly pursues their own agenda. That is not a prank. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Uh kenney, look, i tried to stop a dispute on List of WordGirl Characters, I did over 48 hours of research for the 2011 episodes of season 8 of cyberchase, I ask questions at the ref desk some times out of curiosity and others to improove articles as i did to List of Kim Possible Characters, so your statement that i haven't contributed productively is crap, utter crap. All comunication with you Ken is no longer welcome to me, don't talk to me again, because we're going to get nowhere, and noone has summarized my point yet anyway. And for clairification, the reason behind the prank comment is not about the 'behind the singers back' thing, more of the 'noone cares about the background of the line' thing, when you asked about it yourself, though indirectly, you still asked. This is resolved, any more questions can be asked on my talk page, but i don't want any more comunication with Beyond My Ken unless they can find something posative about me or my contributions. Sorry Kenney, but i don't want a war to start.

Please note that my username is not "Kenny", but "Beyond My Ken". You may also use "BMK" to refer to me as well, if you prefer, but since "Ken" is not my RL name, and is not a name when used in the expression "Beyond my ken", "Kenny" is not appropriate.

I stand by my assessment of your edits, and I predict a block in your future if you don't adjust your attitude. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

According to EO,[18] the term "ken" in this context means "within range of sight". It's not a very common expression anymore, but in The Sound of Music, the song "Sixteen Going on Seventeen" contains a line about "timid and shy and scared am I, of things beyond my ken", or something like that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Really? Strange, because I played that part (Rolf Gruber) in a high school production (mumble mumble) years ago, but I don't recollect those words. Maybe that's where I picked it up, andit just stuck. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it was "16" (Liesl?) who sang that line, but I'd have to check. I have to tell you, that is not exactly one of my favorite things from that musical. But it's there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

In the movie, at least, both Rolf and Liesl sing that lyric, "...things beyond your/my ken." Don't know about the stage play. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

General comment: A CU might be considered here, since the exbihibted behavior borders on trolling. In my experience, it's relatively rare for a new user to carry this much of a chip on their shoulder and to project such a strong attitude of privilege. JMHO. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

In general, editors who insist on retaining a signature that's considered disruptive inevitably will get indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how it is disruptive, is there any suggestion on what i can do to keep my signature, or to change it while still giving the same comedic message? should i say Inna instead of Elena Apostoleanu, if that's what you're saying, then by all means i'll put it to that, or should it just be "Go behind the line." N.I.M. I miss you nissae! Elena Apostoleanu go behind the line. 04:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You could start by explaining just what it's supposed to mean. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

See my talkpage, i explain it there. Summary here for your convenience: I told my former T.A. Mrs. H that I had a iki account, and heard that i could change my signature, and Mrs. H said "Why not use go behind the line, but you have to give me a list of singers you like. this way we're getting the go behind the line in there with a singer's name." she says it is supposed to be like a quote said on Reno 911, so i said okay. Singers i had to choose from include Kerri Kenney and Inna, for full list see my talk page. What line? I used to accidentaly wait in front of the pink line at the buss stop at when i was in middle school. Mrs. H would walk up to me and do a vary good trudy wiegel version of saying "Go behind the lin, uh , mr. " then she'd laugh. There, for full explainiationsee my talk page, name probibly was bleeped,out but the T.A. i'm refering to is Mrs. H. N.I.M. I miss you nissae! Elena Apostoleanu go behind the line. 04:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Is this better? N.I.M. I miss you nissae! Go behind the line. 04:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I see. An obscure but seemingly harmless joke. If I understand right, "Go behind the line" is another way of saying, "Back of the line", or "Get in line"? And I take it Nissae and Elena are the names of folks you once knew? Unless you have permission to make their names public, you're best off dropping them... which I see you've already half-done. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

Nissae Isen is Google-able, and Elena Apostoleanu. Very doubtful N.I.M knows them personally. Mrs. H is presumably well-known to N.I.M., since apparently she was using his computer at 1 in the morning. That full name is what I revdeleted from WT:RD. Franamax (talk) 05:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The implications of what you're saying are a tad disturbing... like if I were to rename myself "Mae West's man | I miss you Mae!" only it's worse if it were a living person. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I personally would prefer to see a different choice of user name, given the way Google does its indexing. But according to WP:RFC/NAME, it's OK. Now if that name gets linked to disruptive behaviour and AN/I threads, the person whose name it is might not feel the same way... Franamax (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I know Nissae, hense the line "I miss you Nissae", which is exactly right. Last time i saw her was january 2010, hoping to see her again, so hense the I miss you Nissae. N.I.M. I miss you nissae! Go behind the line. 07:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I must say, i rather liked that discussion about the expression "Beyond my Ken", i'm going to see if i can find that in that musical. N.I.M. I miss you nissae! Go behind the line. 12:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Note that I've removed NIM's malformed attempt at placing a Resolved tag on this thread. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Enough. This NIM person's signal/noise ratio is so low as to render him or her blockworthily timewasting. It's time for NIM to go to some other website. -- Hoary (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Nissae Isen's Man's explanation of what the issue is here is incomprehensible. Franamax, what do you want this person to stop doing and why? Uncle G (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't want anything from this thread per se, however I expect them to comply with what I posted at their talk page under "Removed material" viz do not post names of private living individuals. I'll say though that I'm very concerned with their behaviour over the last few days, starting with rhis thread. I've spent a fair bit of time trying to help this editor for the last few months and my patience is very near to an end. I'm not hopeful they will ever become a net benefit to the project and currently they are wasting far more of other editor's time than they are contributing to articles. I'm not the one who brought it here, but right now I'd largely agree with Hoary above. Franamax (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Just some background: NIM is a blind user who uses a Screen reader to help them work within Wikipedia. There are often misunderstandings in both directions (i.e. NIM misunderstanding something someone else has said, or others being unable to understand NIM). He's generally well-meaning, but there have been a number of conflicts of this nature over the past few weeks. --Jayron32 16:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Note also that NIM used to edit as User:204.112.104.172, and may have been the user responsible for that IP being blocked a couple of times for disruptive editing. I say "may have been" because this user also has a history of claiming that other people come over and use his/her computer without his/her permission to disruptively edit WP (which I mention in light of this user's present claims that "Mrs. Whomever" has logged into N.I.M.'s account recently for the purpose of "giving permission" for NIM to use her name here, which is the issue that prompted Franamax's warning, which is apparently what prompted NIM to start this thread in the hope of getting Franamax to retract). WikiDao ☯ 20:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

convenience break

We'll stop trying to 'judge judy' me by those posts, How was i supposed to know that that friend of mine was editing disruptively on wikipedia, when he falsely claimed he was mearly playing a game, a game with no sounds. By bringing that up, you're just making me feel wrong for trusting him. Mrs. H has nothing to do with him, his mom has delt with him and there like i stated countless times will be no probloms from him in the future. Mrs. H was visiting me the other night, that's how she was able to post. She has made judgements like i state that I have no idea about, and won't try to understand, but she means well. She's genrally nice, unlike george (not his real name), who duped me. You can't keep reminding us of those edits, and tell me again, where did george get that false claim about someone else sharing my ip? He got it from a novel we read, no two ways about the truth. I cannot remember what novel it was in grade 9, but there was a character in it that George liked that was named Annika, and i assume that he wanted to use that name because of a character he likes. Cutoff ties mentions that we both ask about voice actors and want to write movies, well, it's a common interest we share, as well as a grammar weekeness. That's how we became friends, (no not the whole storry, just givving the obvious), so there. Settled, please quit mentioning my IP edits of august and september, and some into october because it is humiliating remembering that I was duped like that. He turned off my screen reader so I woulden't know what was going on. I was busy doing something else at the time and gave no thought, then I checked my history. All those wikipedia pages showed up, and I realized that he created this fake claim about Annika. He is the prankster that i knew for 8 years, apparently 9 years. Hope he's not finding a way on to other sights. Anyway, back to the event summary: I saw he even got my IP blocked, just around the time when he was supposed to be showing me some tricks he learned on how to edit wikipedia. My visual consultant coulden't help me because school wasn't started yet, and pluss how can i have edited when George ended up getting it blocked.

There's one user i would like to thank for blocking out george's nonsense for a while, fences and windows. Thank you. After the block, George went on Wikipedia when he was supposed to again be playing a game while i watched movies, and he kept on doing this without my knowledge. In late september, i beat him at his own trick and tricked him into showing me exactly how to edit and how to do the basic stuff like signing. Later, he was still editing, and stopped when he went away on a trip, which was around when i created the account. When he got back, he his mom and I gathered and I told Mrs. **** (diferent person, george's mom) about what was going on, and i told them that George could never touch my computer again until he learns to be better with that stuff, and that's serious. It was agreed, so, george is gone. Hope this helps, any questions i'll be able to answer, but no using anything what so ever as evidence against me because i can proove it wrong with one thing, fact. Sorry about the length but every time my block with IP is mentioned, i'm going to mention this, as a motive for people to quit judging me about it. Thanks for helping me frannamax, I do want to improove the encyclopedia too, and by asking questions at the ref desk, i gain that knowledge, some times for curiosity, others to improve articles. Please, no more IP, IP is history, along with George. Thanks for your time, questions about George can be asked on my talk page. No nonsense about "Yeah, sure, you're lying" kind of thing at me please, and thanks franamax for all the help. thanks all of you for all the help. N.I.M. I miss you nissae! Go behind the line. 22:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That was a really tl;dr way of saying, "Yeah, I let someone else use my computer and they vandalized Wikipedia, but that was a long time ago." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

From WP:SIG Keep signatures short, both in display and in markup. N.I.M., your sig is too long, please truncate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Withdrawn, as I see the sign has been truncated considerably by removing the name. It's still long, but not outside of usual norms. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Jayron32 writes above: NIM is a blind user who uses a Screen reader to help them work within Wikipedia. But I see little if any sign of work; I just see blather. For those who want to tell the world about their catchphrases, their little jokes, their housemates and their other domestic circumstances, the gods have provided Blogger and WordPress. -- Hoary (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Precisely was I was referring to when I said "cut the crap and contribute". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

And all of said "blather" may have a real-world impact on the living person named in NIM's username (about which I agree with the concern expressed by Franamax above[19] and at RFC/NAME. (I ask at Franamax's talkpage how I might most appropriately go about re-opening that issue for further discussion, if that is still possible after the "Allow" closure of the discussion at RFC; comments on that by others would also be welcome there). WikiDao ☯ 00:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, so I suggest blocking the user and replacing the content of the user page and user talk page with the usual terse templates. -- Hoary (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a silly ad hominem post directed at me by N.I.M. It seems that N.I.M. is willing to cease quoting the name of the living singer Elena Apostoleanu in signatures. What remains is for N.I.M. to indicate in few words an understanding that it was unacceptable. I have no objection to the words "Go behind the line." in N.I.M.'s latest signature. Their distraction would be less if they were put in ^{superscript font} like Baseball Bugs does with ^{What's up, doc?}. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 03:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, i can't do the fontie wontie thing, I don't know how, and I can't always rely on others to do that for me. You can't block me just because you think i'm not contributing, look at some of the articles i have contributed to rather than what i haven't contributed to. Besides, you can't block me just because of your point of view, then someone will unblock you and critticize you for irrational blocking or something like that. It's not like what it used to be when users could be blocked mearly for little reasons, like being annoying. I wish i could change the faunt but i can't, sorry. If hoary tries to block me then they may be critticized and i'm sure they woulden't want that. I don't have time for their nishnash about my supposed issues. I feel they are overreacting and need to tone it down and quit trying to gang people up on me. I don't need people ganging up on me. This is how i feel Hoary is treating me, "I'm hoary and I want everyone to gang up on N.I.M. and oust him! Come on everybody, get him out of the sight because he is a useless piece of s***!" Even if it isn't true, that's how their comments are making me feel, so hoary, you need to also cut some crap out as well. I mean that in the most civil way possible. N.I.M. I miss you nissae! Go behind the line. 10:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so maybe the Elena Apostoleanu was wrong, it was a good intention though, you know that right? and i still go by what i am saying to hoary about the critticizing they will get if they block me for being annoying. I don't like seing people being critticized, but when it needs to happen it will happen. By telling Hoary that they are not to block me over their views, i'm trying to save them from criticism because i believe in world peace. We all believe in world peace, right? N.I.M. I miss you nissae! Go behind the line. 10:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

New signature = N.I.M. miss you. Go behind the line. I'm still getting the message to her, just in a more vague way. N.I.M. miss you. Go behind the line. 11:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Per this, I request an immediate indefblock of the above editor. It's the end of the night for me so I won't act when I can't respond. I'll enact the block if necessary between glass of water and cup of coffee tomorrow. Enough is enough. Franamax (talk) 12:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, don't block me, i said i realize that the Elena Apostoleanu thing was wrong, and what i was pointing out was that Hoary's idea of blocking me would trigger critticism, and I feel there is enough war going on in the world. I don't believe in leaving people in the dark, which is why i have said many times, If you have any questions, ask me and i'll be happy to help, but a block? that's a bit of an over reaction here, especially as i said i realize the E.A. was a mistake. I just want to save someone from critticism, is there something wrong within that? if there is let me know. If there is a rule against trying to save them from critticizings then let me know, i can't follow a rule i have no idea about, regards, N.I.M. miss you. Go behind the line. 12:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so sig is changed. I think the only remaining thing is to emphasise to NIM to cut the crap and get down to contributing to the wiki, with the proviso that if we see any more drama and no content work it is not going to go well for them. Also to strongly suggest a name change given their non-credible claims about really being "Isen's Man". --Errant ^(chat!) 13:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

She has no problom with that, so i don't se why you do, however, I am currently trying to find a source for something i found out about new episodes of the show Biz Kid$, when i find out where to find it i'll put that in. I really am Nissae Isen's man, she has no prob with it, i'll be back after school to see if i can find out more about season 4 of biz kid$ N.I.M. miss you. Go behind the line. 13:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Well you just changed my mind. You cannot claim associations like that, now supporting some form of block if you do not stop. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support block. (BTW please note that this user is quite adept at eating up a lot of time and attention.) Again, please consider this diff mentioned by Franamax above. User is an obsessed fan claiming an intimate connection with a minor voice actress. Because that voice actress's name is part of NIM's username, and because this user has been signing with "I miss you {actress's name}!", NIM's userpage is steadily climbing the hit-list in google searches for that actress. Given NIM's activity at WP -- which rarely involves anything like contructivly helping to build an encyclopedia -- we are contributing to having a negative impact on this actress's real-world reputation by continuing to permit NIM's activity here, which, again, is not constructive, is regularly complained about at the RD, and ought to be dealt with conclusively as soon as possible. WikiDao ☯ 15:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support block - the user ID amounts to stalking, and he should not only be blocked, but his user ID should be deleted and salted... and watch out for recurrences. And another thing: I don't believe, for one minute, that this guy is blind or whatever. The behavior reminds me a bit of the user ItsLassieTime, though that could be a coincidence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support block. Protecting a real life person from from an obsessive and/or deluded fanboy should be the priority here, and these nonsensical claims are getting too close to cyber-stalking - and those Google searches are getting way too creepy. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

  Just to clarify - it's his user name, claiming he has a personal association with Ms Isen, that is the problem. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - the signature is only half the issue here; the other half is this user's name of "Nissae Isen's Man" - again, Nissae Isen is a BLP, a minor Canadian voice artist and actress, as confirmed by a brief IMDB page about her. An article about her was deleted by AfD on 16 March 2008. GiantSnowman 17:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I would think if he simply had "[whoever] fan" as his user name, that might be acceptable, as I've seen it elsewhere. The implication that he "knows" her somehow reminds me a little too much of well-publicized news stories I'd rather not name specifically. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

For your discretion BB, I mark that you are a good chap, man. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Even a blind squirrel, such as I, finds an acorn now and then. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Neutral. N.I.M. has removed the singer's name and that is slow progress. I can help N.I.M. with the font of his slogan. N.I.M. you have to type "tags" before and after the slogan. The tags look like I show here but without the spaces: < s u p >Go to the end of the line. < / s u p > Then people will see ^{Go to the end of the line.} and not be so distracted. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Quick question (sorry, I can't easily find the answer in amongst the tl;dr from a certain editor above and elsewhere). Has NIM been explicitly asked to agree to a username change, and either refused or not answered? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Franamax raised the concern about the user's name with the user when the user chose it, but then took it to RFC/NAME before explicitly asking the user to change it (the result, ill-considered in my view and discussion-closed before I saw it, was "Allow"). WikiDao ☯ 17:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm a little late to the party here, but I've left a simple request at NIM's talk page here. Maybe it's too strongly worded, but I agree with comments of several people above that we should take the possible impact on the actress seriously. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support Block We are here to build an encyclopedia. This user seems to be more of a hindererance then a help. Their signature seems to be WP:POINTy though i can't figure out the point they are trying to make.--Guerillero | My Talk 00:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

I've indefblocked the account (at least) until they can prove their association with the named individual. I think that eventuality rather unlikely, rather I think we're dealing here with a plain old competence issue, possibly one that can be solved by the route of waiting until one is a year or two older. As far as cleaning up the BLP issues, I'm thinking the best approach is to change and/or remove the use of the two living names (NI and EA) from talk pages and {{noindex}} the user and user talk pages. That way renaming the account won't be necessary. I'm interested in other thoughts on the issue though, and the availability of a bot to make the changes. Franamax (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Would you be prepared to consider an unblock of the account if they fulfill all of, (1) agree to immediately request a rename of their account, and (2) agree not to discuss NI or EA further, and (3) agree to attempt to edit more constructively? I share others' views on the inappropriateness of the username and the claims related to it, and I don't enjoy reading the blathering either, but I do feel we've jumped quite quickly to what is effectively a permanent block based on what we expect they can't prove. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that (3) is the most important here. Keeping in mind Arthur C. Clarke's comment on magic and technology, there comes a time where sufficiently incompetent behavior becomes indistinguishable from deliberate trolling, and this user is perilously close to that line. There's not much point in having them change their name only to have them continue to suck up time and resources with more "blather". Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you fully reviewed the account history? I don't think I'm acting too quickly at all, there are several months of recurrent problems, it's just come to a head in the last few days with BLP issues that have to be acted on firmly. In any case, I'm not going to unblock the account at all, I'll leave that for a reviewing admin. They do have an alternative on the first condition and that is to state that they were telling a story, which can then be viewed against the pattern of story-telling coming from the IP address/account. There are additional troubling issues, here are two: they state vision-impairment and problems with their JAWS screen-reader, yet JAWS apparently has no such issues with Wikipedia content; and their former T.A. (whose full name I revdeleted) who is such a good friend that she was at their computer at 1 AM, making the same type of spelling mistake as N.I.M., used to tell him to step behind the pink line on the ground - seems a rather unfair thing to do to a blind person, dunnit? On that last, it is certainly possible their vision-impairment was acquired later, but it becomes very difficult to keep track of all the stories. Look again at what actual article edits they've made, and all the other activity. If you can construe a possibility of "net-positive" editing from that, perhaps you can make a more detailed case for them. Me, I just don't see it. Franamax (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Nor me. I don't think we need to spend yet more of our time wondering why it is that NIM contributes so little that's worthwhile and has already wasted so much of others' time. Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", but there are certain implicit assumptions about the "anyone" that NIM violates. -- Hoary (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
• The block seems a sensible move. I'd already noindexed^{diff1, diff2} the user and talk pages. pablo 21:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Good block. Since being blocked, NIM has said: I also want to keep my name. I just feel proud of who I love, is there anything against that? I don't think I need comment here on this; I suggest replacing the content of NIM's user talk page with a template. -- Hoary (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

And now they're working on revealing their own name. I'm starting to think of a full shutdown as they don't seem aware of the full implications of revealing personal information. Franamax (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It may not appear it, but I'm trying very hard to AGF here. Even so, the whole thing just does not hang together for me, the gestalt feels all wrong. I'm concerned that we're being played, and I'd like to reiterate my suggestion that a CU would be a good idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

CU doesn't work that way though. Name your suspected puppetmaster and show your evidence. Otherwise they'll just send us trotting along to go fishing somewhere else. Franamax (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I still like my dumbass approach of asking them to change their username, and, if they say no, treating it as acceptance that they don't want to come back. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. The person that I've been trying to defend (I'm so silly), either thinks that Judge Judy is a court and they can threaten editors with it, or thinks that some editors might think so. Either way, we seem to have WP:NLT violations here. Someone may wish to lengthen their block, or something. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think everyone ought to have at least some representation by an experienced editor here (ie., at ANI), so thank you for serving that purpose in this case, Demiurge! :) However, please see my current assessment of this case on the user's talk page, here. There is a very reasonable likelihood, in my opinion, that this user is not a physically disabled child but is in fact a troll. WikiDao ☯ 05:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Trolls and physically disabled children and confused people and invaders from outer space who make legal threats should all be treated exactly the same. This is because the reaction is not for the purpose of WP:THERAPY or legal defence of Wikipedia or intergalactic war or some inspired moral purpose; it's because legal threats, if even vaguely plausible, can have a significant negative effect on the ability of other users to express their views. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not a remotely credible legal threat, it's just the last TV show they watched. Another attempt at bargaining will likely be next. Eventually they will come to terms with being blocked Franamax (talk) 05:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

More administrators needed on unblock-l

As happens from time to time, we don't have very many administrators active right now on unblock-l, which is the mailing list on which blocked users are invited to submit requests for unblocking. If a few more admins would get involved on this list and respond to some of the pending and incoming requests, it would be very helpful.

Editors or potential editors writing to this list include both editors who have been blocked by administrators for misconduct and are appealing their blocks, as well as many would-be editors who are caught up in rangeblocks or IP blocks and need accounts created. I venture to think that most people who are thinking of making an initial contribution and get a complicated rangeblock notice just wander away, so responding quickly to the subset of them who write in asking for information or accounts should be a high priority for the administrator corps.

Several administrators have done yeomen work in keeping things under control on this list, but more help is urgently and continuously required. My thanks to anyone who is able to pitch in. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Can I again say that a ticket system (X! has proposed one before and I think could create one) would really help? Also, does anyone have boilerplates saved onwiki? If I can remember where they are, I might actually respond to some requests :P. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The ticket system is kind of on the backburner behind the Peachy burgers and the Toolserver chops. Once I get around to it, though, it should be a cinch to write. I plan to do so before the summer rolls around. (X! · talk)  · @253  ·  05:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
    • And can I back the call for help. Most of the ones I see are just caught up in a school/range block etc. Dougweller (talk) 08:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

How do I join?·Maunus·ƛ· 08:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

See this link - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I echo Brad's request. It's really not so bad on the list and a few pairs of extra eyes would be greatly appreciated. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I recently returned to unblock-en duty, and it's true that most of the requests are from school administrators or people caught in wide rangeblocks. It's pretty simple (and funny) to spot those who have spamming or pure self-interest in mind, yet think they're being clever and disguising their intent. Spend a few minutes with us dealing with unanswered requests - it won't take very much out of your Wikiday and you'll get a glimpse of what it's like to be an innocent on the end of those 'you are blocked' messages. KrakatoaKatie 04:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Going to a ticket-like OTRS system (as oversight-l) wouldn't be a bad idea as far as organization and status are concerned, but I'm a little concerned, as with OTRS and oversight-l, about the extensive usage of "canned responses", which may be a little off-putting for some people. –MuZemike 21:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• I unsubscribed from unblock-en-l because of the volume of traffic that filled my inbox up. Aside from subscribing through a dedicated email address, one cannot "dip in" and handle a few requests; it's totally overwhelming IIRC - and worse, when you do read the mass of messages, most of them will already have been handled by another volunteer. I remain wary of OTRS, both because it adds an additional level of bureaucracy to getting e-mails handled and because I'm not convinced that it is well-managed (to say the least), but it might be the best option - for this mailing list at least. AGK [•] 01:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I would certainly contend that unblock requests via email is still very much necessary, as some users are too new or too wiki-illiterate to know how to post an unblock request, and some people are more comfortable with communicating via email. As AGK pointed out, though, we could use a better way to organize the requests; even WP:ACC is not a bad system as far as organization of processing of requests are concerned. –MuZemike 10:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Using Gmail seems to sort out the traffic from the list and ensure I'm not responding to something already handled. As for the template, I'll admit to finding it hard to use when trying to use it to decline or unblock someone, it isn't intuitive and I don't do it often enough to remember what I'm not supposed to do. Dougweller (talk) 10:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

How do these usernames get allowed?

I've just indeffed SHlTbag 12 (talk · contribs) after a 2-minute career editing Wikipedia. How do these usernames get allowed in the first place? Isn't there some kind of filter in place to prevent these from being registered in the first place; and if not, why not? Mjroots (talk) 09:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how i managed to beat you at reverting them Mjroots, gotta be faster next time! who knows why, a filter would certainly be handy --Lerdthenerd wiki defender 09:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I was concentrating on preventing further vandalism by judicious exercising of my banhammer. Undoing the damage did not require admin's tools. Mjroots (talk) 09:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You could utilize MediaWiki:Titleblacklist to prevent such usernames, but you do need to be careful about false positives. I'm sure a regex on shitbag would be fine, but just plain shit would not (i.e. Pushit, Finishit, Shittah, Shittimwood, etc). –MuZemike 10:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but this was SHlTbag 12, using two capital letters, a lowercase letter L, a capital letter, three lowercase letters, a space and two numerals. Shltbag should be blacklisted as it's obviously trying to evade a filter should one exist for "shitbag" (in all forms). Mjroots (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Request made at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist. Mjroots (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised this wasn't at least reported by the bot at WP:UAA, it usually reports homoglyphs of profanity (sh1t,fuk, and the like); I guess the "shit" regex missed this one. Not sure where the regexes the bot uses are specified or if the developers need to change it, but it might be worth tweaking it to report "shlt" in the future since it seems to have missed it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It was reported, see below. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

My mistake; when I searched for the name in WP:UAAB I guess I didn't go far back enough in the history. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no way a bot or filter can spot every possible version of this (think of l33tspeak). All new account creations should be noted on the RC patrol IRC feed, if they're not already. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

All new accounts are listed here, Special:Log/newusers... There are a few users who regularly patrol that list (and some bots that do the same). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This account was caught, but since (as mentioned above) "shit" can be all right in a username, it needed review first. And it was blocked before that happened. See here - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The account was blocked primarily because it was abundantly clear that it was not being used for the improvement of Wikipedia. The username issue is secondary. I am aware of shit needing caution because of the India name issue, but obvious attempts to circumvent filters should be acted upon. Mjroots (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

But, it did get reported, so it would have been acted on (and was acted on, by you). So what's the problem...? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that there may be legitimate uses of "shit", but 5hit, sh1t, shlt, 5h1t and 5hlt are all obvious attempts to avoid a filter, thus they should be blocked. Mjroots (talk) 10:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Seen this one at AFD. Most likely Japanese but it made me laugh. I'm Minna Sora, no shit.. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Tbh I'd rather you didn't use ANI to make fun of another contributor's username. Jafeluv (talk) 08:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Community ban proposal for User:Jacob Hnri 6

Resolved

 – Jacob Hnri 6 community banned - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if it will make a behavioral difference but it will free us up to rollback all of his edits without violating 3RR. This is following up on the above thread "Multiple 'Empty Trend' User accounts". Propose community ban for Jacob Hnri 6 (talk · contribs).

• Support as nom. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support -- 37 block evading accounts in 12 hours is ridiculous. Personally if it were me, I'd just do it. He's already defacto community banned, and his accounts are obviously vandal only. I really doubt anyone would call you out on it, and it's certainly within the spirit (and possibly even the letter) of the rule. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support 37 block evading accounts in 12 hours is ridiculous no its inexcusable. MuZumike mentioned the possibility bot creating these that makes him 10X more important to be able to roll back efficiently. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Enough is enough, most definitely this user isn't here to contribute constructively and has exhausted community's patience. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Vandalism is inexcusable, and sockpuppeteering a series of vandalism-only accounts is intolerable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support evidence seems convincing, and some of the best users have sanctioned it. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 23:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support Enough is enough. The extensive socking is enough for me to say support to this. --CrohnieGal^Talk 9:58 am, Today (UTC−5)

Note: Apparently, our vandal is 11 years old, going on 12. Another reason why children should not be touching Wikipedia. –MuZemike 01:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Great. Well anyway, ban discussion has run 24 hours so I'm marking this resolved and tagging him as banned. Maybe in another year or so he/she will start focusing on girls/boys and leave us alone. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

User:BWFC 2-0 YCFC

This user continually removes deletion tags from his articles that have been nominated for deletion. He has been warned by myself and another editor that if he continues he will be blocked, but he continued to modify the AfD templates:

1st occurence: He removed the AfD template I placed on article Philipp Prosenik.

diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philipp_Prosenik&action=historysubmit&diff=406759546&oldid=406758957

• I informed him that only administrators should remove AfD templates.

2nd occurence: He removed the AfD template User:Ponyo placed on article Aziz Deen-Conteh.

diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aziz_Deen-Conteh&action=historysubmit&diff=406891051&oldid=406884320

• User:RGTraynor reverted the edit.

3rd occurence: He removed the AfD template I placed on article Philipp Prosenik for the second time.

diff:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philipp_Prosenik&action=historysubmit&diff=406883303&oldid=406850920

• User:RGTraynor informed him that doing removing the template again will result in be blocked.

4th occurence: He modified the AfD template I placed on article Philipp Prosenik to link to the wrong AfD discussion.

diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philipp_Prosenik&action=historysubmit&diff=407090025&oldid=407089825

• I reverted his edit and reminded him that he would be blocked if he persisted.

He doesn't seem to care that he has been warned multiple times that he will be blocked if he does not stop. Could someone please look into this situation? Epass (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• I've warned him twice on his talk page, and sent him a more specific note about why the articles he's creating have been all nominated for deletion. Seemingly he doesn't believe the warnings; in any event, he's yet to respond to any inquiry or message.  RGTraynor  21:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he isn't communicating, which is not a good sign. We'll see if he responds here at all. Dougweller (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not in any way condoning the AfD template removals (it is pretty clear about no one removing them, unlike PRODs which authors can technically remove on their own), but is there a reason these articles weren't either CSD'd or PRODded before going to AfD? It might be somewhat overwhelming to someone to see all of one's creations chopped at in a manner they don't understand with the AfD boxes. I'm also in no way supporting or opposing whether the articles sh/could have met deletion requirements... I'm just like to hope there's a tiny bit of good faith left to offer. Removing the bot-placed possible copyvio template, on the other hand, is a rather one-sided argument.

Anyway, you guys have it covered. WP:FOOTY's sizable !directories of oh-so-many things are a deep, dark, damp place to crawl around and from personal experience it's better to grab stuff like this asap before a user might create dozens (or, say, 100+) possibly delete-needed articles on the subject. It's been known to happen. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 06:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Mm, but so what if they were prodded? Obviously the creator would have removed the prods, the articles would have gone straight to AfD, and we'd be right here anyway, only with the inexperienced creator with the notion in his head that it's okay to remove templates. Prod templates are not one bit less "OMG what are they doing to my ARTICLES???" than AfD templates.  RGTraynor  12:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It's yet another 10alatham sock. Their standard MO is to create articles on non-notable youth team footballers, often by copyvio, then remove the tags to force AfDs thereby causing maximum disruption. I'll do another SPI report, but if someone with the tools wanted to WP:CSD#G5 the articles in the meantime... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked the sock, but somebody will need to nuke the articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

All nuked, per WP:CSD#G5. –MuZemike 18:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Mardi Gras

Resolved

 – ^{per User:Heironymous Rowe - JoeSperrazza JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)}

The carnival season has officially started and for the last several years in a row as the carnival season progresses this article sees more and more IP vandalism, and for the last 2 years it is eventually semi-protected due to the escalating vandalism. What would be the process to this year have it added to the "pending changes" setting instead of protecting it? Or is it to early to be asking this? I've just reverted IP vandalism from two seperate IPs in the last hour.Heiro 21:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFPP is the place to request any protection, including activating the "Pending changes" flag. --Jayron32 21:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Heiro 21:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Done and done, autoconfirmed now implemented, thanks Doug, we'll see if that works a little better this year. Heiro 22:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Freakum Dress

I'm coming to ANI because an unjustified deletion. Kww (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) commented me that the correct venue was WP:DRV, in which I'll take it as well, but I'm posting here because this is an admin issue.

Kww deleted the page Freakum Dress with the justification of WP:G4 (Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion). G4 states that "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy," and "This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". I cannot see the article in 2007, and I really don't think that the current vesion is sufficienty identical. It was deleted twice in that year: because it was a nonsense "Freekum Dress is the rumored fifth single from her CD B'Day", and in a more serious second AFD, were the article maybe was a stub, I don't know.

The article, which is almost a copy of Jivesh's sandbox User:Jivesh boodhun/Freakrum Dress, pass WP:GNG: Significant coverage, Is reliable, Has sources, Independent of the subject and it is presumed, but according to Kww, it fails WP:NSONGS (a subtopic of WP:N) because it never charted or had a cover. The true is that many articles which never charted nor have covers, exist in Wikipedia, as an example: D.S. (song).

I am here because Kww, with a cocky attitude, commented me Have fun... my deletion will probably get upheld (90% chance or greater). This is untrue, assume that all people share your POV is an arrogant attitude, specially from an admin who does not understand what is WP:IAR (admins can read my comment when I reverted one of his edits) IAR states: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Jivesh cleary improve the article against what NSONGS states, but Kww insist that this is not correct and re-create the article for people comment in a third AFD would be irresponsible. If this is not the correct venue, (beside DRV) where I can comment about the abuse of his admin tools. Sorry for my bad English. Tbhotch^™ and © 22:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll stand behind my G4. This article was deleted three times before. The second AFD specifically calls out the reasons for deletion as the fact that it hasn't charted or even been released as a single. Those facts have not changed. Nothing in the information added by Jivesh addresses either of those issues, and nothing in the relevant guideline (WP:NSONGS) makes those issues unimportant.

I do fully understand what WP:IAR is about. Unlike Jivesh, I wouldn't consider a Wikipedia that had articles about every song ever released by every artist and improvement. WP:NSONGS reflects current consensus about what songs received articles, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freakum Dress (2) clearly indicates that this topic doesn't contain anything to make it an exception.

WP:DRV is where this should be discussed, if it must be discussed at all.—Kww(talk) 22:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to point out that Tbhotch has opened this discussion at both ANI and DRV. As a side note, is there any problem with claiming a trademark and copyright on a username? I obviously won't act on that today due to WP:INVOLVED.—Kww(talk) 22:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And how about WP:GNG, it passes the 5 points, and I told you If you really believe this will be deleted in any AFD, re-create it and wait for it, Wikipedia won't stop existing just because of this. For the trademark symbol (™), Use of this symbol does not mean that the trademark has been registered as registered trademarks. Tbhotch^™ and © 22:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

There's sure a lot of original research and unsourced claims in that userfied article, as well as stuff that has nothing to do with the song. Corvus cornix_talk 22:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I said "which is almost a copy", not "is the same". Tbhotch^™ and © 22:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) I neither agree or disagree with the decision. I'm indifferent. but in this instance as the deletion was carried out it should have been taken to WP:DRV. I believe the main issue is the deletion of the article not Kww's deletion of it. (read that last bit carely... there's a difference). Thus this ANi is actually inappropriate because this is effectively a glorified content dispute. I recommend this ANI is closed and allow the DRV to run its course. If Kww's actions are proved wrong he will be scolded through that for deletion but ANI is not a place to discuss whether deletion was correct or not. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, DRV is the location for this. FWIW, I'd say that when every link on the "Critical reception" section is a review of the album this track is on, and not this track itself, that pretty much points to it being non-notable. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly... independent coverage means independent of the album as well as 3rd party. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure, I also did a speedy on File:Freakrum Dress Beyonce.jpg. It was a montage of six separate images from the music video, with a fair use claim that didn't give credit to the creator of the montage. Improperly licensed, and no way to ever pass WP:NFCC.—Kww(talk) 22:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• I won't comment on the article as this is being discussed at DRV already. If you feel this is part of a pattern of poor use of admin tools Wikipedia:Request for comment/Kww is a redlink. Turn it blue. If you simply disagree with this one deletion the let DRV handle it. I would suggest you two just avoid each other, you don't seem to get along very well. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, until today, I don't think that Tbhotch and I have had any serious disputes. I know he monitors my edits, because whenever I forget a semi-protection template he slaps one on an hour or two later. I've never been certain if that's something he looks at in general, or if I'm part of a group of people that he monitors.—Kww(talk) 02:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• As Kww stated, this is the very first time he and I get into a conflict, so I don't think this will be frequent. But no Kevin, I do not watch your edits, most of time. I use the protection log for the pp-semi. Tbhotch^Talk and C. 07:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The song didn't receive a conventional physical release as a single, but it was given promotion independent of the album, so the statement "[i]t wasn't released as a single" is rather misleading—particularly given that digital downloading is redefining the definition of a "single" (see Billboard). Also, Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums and songs states, "A separate [song] article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." I'm not sure how "reasonably detailed" is defined, but I'm pretty certain that the article isn't a stub. The B'Day article is already very long, and though at a glance it appears to be in need of a little tightening, I'm not sure it would be appropriate for content containing information specific to the song to be included in the album article. In any case, AFD is for proposals for deletion, not merging—if you think the article should be merged somewhere, please follow the instructions at Help:Merging and moving pages#Proposing a merger. Notability is rather the issue here. But notability does not mean a song should be released as a single. Also, maybe in other place the song is not notable enough but in Europe, it is. I was thinking also of merging; B'Day was just revamped by me and I personally assert that its long and need professional copy-editing. Everything important in the article is already mentioned in the mother article. 11:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Article restored

User:Theuhohreo took it upon himself to recreate the article yet again. I consider his intent obviously disruptive, and would appreciate someone else talking to him about the inadvisability of bypassing WP:DRV.

That said, I've restored the history and begun the AFD cycle for the article. Hopefully we can just salt the thing this time and avoid repetition of the problem.—Kww(talk) 19:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Tbhotch's sig

Tbhotch's signature contains both a trademark symbol and a copyright symbol. These symbols have specific legal meanings, and should not be used otherwise -- this is not a social network site, this is an online encyclopedia. I request that Tbhotch remove them from their sig. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• I don't now which is your country, but we use the word "please", hope you someday use it as well, and this is not the correct place for talk about how I sign. Reserved signature: User:Tbhotch 00:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Oh and Wikipedia:Signatures talk nothing about using symbols, you just must not use images. I agree with the CC-SA-BY license of my edits, but I still being the holder of my edits: "Attribution". Reserved signature: User:Tbhotch 00:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• And again, wrong venue for that request. At the top of the page it says "To report improper usernames, see usernames for administrator attention." Try somewhere else. This noticeboard is not a dumping ground for general complaints. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, it's in response to a comment that I made above, and it isn't about the username: it's about the signature. Signature complaints don't have a specific noticeboard, and WP:ANI is where they are normally handled. I note that Tbhotch has modified his signature, so hopefully the whole issue doesn't matter anymore.—Kww(talk) 00:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

  I was wrong about the noticeboard, thank you for correcting me. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Well the ™ symbol does lead to User talk:Tbhotch, where this should have been written. Try talking directly to Tbhotch. Uncle G (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with that but just as a point of procedure a signature is not something UAA would deal with. The name itself needs to be a problem, and there sre no symbols in his actual username. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC) (all rights reserved)
• This is ridiculous and has absolutely no business here. Unless a person's sig is disruptive, it's no business of the admins. And it's Tbhotch's own business what sorts of design aspects he adds to his signature. Corvus cornix_talk 00:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • If the sig had come to my attention elsewhere, I would of course have brought it to Tbhotch's talk page, but as it came to my attention here and had already been mentioned here and the user was obviously monitoring here, it seemed perfectly reasonable to deal with it here, where other folks could comment on it, and a sense could be found if the sig was disruptive or not. Folks have got to stop being so damned bureaucratic and territorial about where stuff goes and apply a little common sense. I've seen it much too often that someone comes here with a problem that could be fixed or explained in less time than it took someone to blow them off with "This is not the right place for this, take it somewhere else". Obviously, big problems that need considerable input are better off going where people are acclimated to specific problems, but, come on, if you can fix tghe problem, fix it, and then tell them where they should go the next time the problem comes up.

    @Tbhotch: I apologize for not saying "Please". As I just snapped at my 11-year old son, I believe I must be a bit cranky for one reason or another. Thank you for altering your sig, I sppreciate your collegiality in doing so so promptly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

    • You have this backwards. It's being "bureaucratic" that has people posting requests to a general audience on a noticeboard addressing the person concerned indirectly, rather than just talking directly to that person. It's exactly the sort of bureaucratic style that has people bringing-things-to-the-committee, in the third person (just as here), instead of just talking to people straightforwardly.

      In fact, one can find linguists talking about the tendency for bureacratic and legalistic speech to employ the third person over the simple and straightforward second and first person of everyday discourse. (Christopher Williams is one, but there are many others.) Far from other people being the bureaucrats here, what you did was exactly bureaucratic in style and form.

      And you didn't think your "I've seen this many times" rationale through. Only Tbhotch can adjust xyr signature. The rest of us cannot. Again, talking to Tbhotch directly, rather than bureaucratically posting a third-person request addressed to people who couldn't even do anything about the issue, was, and is, the right thing to do. Uncle G (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I did address Tbhotch directly, I merely did it here, because it came up here, rather than on his talk page, where I would have brought it if it hadn't come up here. As it is, the effort to shut down this discussion by stamping a "resolved" on it prematurely has not been helpful, as Tbhotch has said on my talk page that his change to his signature is only meant to be temporary until it is determined whether it is disruptive or not. That conversation needs to take place here and not on one editor's talk page, as it involves commuinity policy matters, and this is where discussions about sigs take place.

My feeling is that the copyright symbol and the trademark symbols have legal meaning in a publication' (of which this is one), and should not be screwed around with. That the sig policy doesn't mention not using them is an oversight, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't act in the best interests of the project and let Tbhotch know that he needs to make the change permanent. We're not someone's weblog, we're supposed to be a serious online reference resource, and we can't be throwing around use of symbols like that just for the hell of it. 02:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

In which way this affect your life, or Wikipedia, tell me, just tell me 1 problem, Legal issues? Are you saying I'll sue someone for use my username without my permission, or someone will sue me becuase of trademark laws? I commented you in a polite way, giving you 6 points of why those symbols are not problems, what exactly are you trying to do here, block me? ban me? Tbhotch^Talk and C. 02:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that we are a publication, that copyright and intellectual property are issues that we take very seriously, and that we should not be using the copyright symbol and the trademark symbol as if they were random non-meaningful symbols. Your explanation of your use does not in any way negate that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

If the problem are the 4 copyright symbols, this is the wrong place, go to WT:Signatures instead and make it a rule. Tbhotch^Talk and C. 02:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The absence of a "rule" saying your signature is specifically prohibited does not mean it is therefore automatically appropriate. I would have to agree that the symbols you were using (and seem to be indicating you will use again unless prohibited from doing so) have very specific meaning, a meaning that is somewhat in conflict with some very fundamental policies of this project. I think it's a relatively minor issue, but one that you could avoid very easily. Are you refusing to do so because you were asked to do so impolitely? There are a whole host of other symbols that you could use, including a very versatile alphabet. jæs (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

jæs, do you do not get mad if someone one day suddenly see your name and arbitrary comment that "æ" is wrong, because he cannot typeface it, and ask to the community for your username change WITHOUT taking it with you, NOR give a reason for it (Note that Ken never commented why this was an issue before I requested him why this was an issue)? Tbhotch^Talk and C. 03:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I somewhat anticipated that could be an issue from time to time, and have User:Jaes as a doppelgänger! That being said, this isn't a matter of your username, but rather your signature. I realize you obviously put some thought into utilizing the ™ and © symbols. But there are other character possibilities which pose no potential for causing confusion regarding the ownership of your work here on Wikipedia. Sincerely, please consider these alternatives? jæs (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

As User:Kbdank71 pointed, we do not sign in articles, this in any sense will "confuse" anyone, we irrevocably agree to release our contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. We follow rules and community consensus, and if there's any of them, why I should consider to user others symbols, if there's any about a "TM" and a "C". It's the first time this is an issue, and maybe the first time an user use legal symbols as decorative letters and someone consider it a legal problem. Tbhotch^Talk and C. 03:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Since we don't sign our content additions, I'd have to say this isn't disruptive. --Kbdank71 03:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Excellent point. It's not disruptive in the least. Beach drifter (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I was surprised he had "Tbh®tch" or other variants, when the most obvious is "Tbhot©h". But we shouldn't have disruptive signatures. :) ←8@$é6@!! 8V9$ ^{VV4@+'$ VP, Δ0©¿} ©@®®0+5→ 12:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the "resolved" tag, as Tbhotch has said that his removal of the symbols from his sig is temporary at this time, and permanence is contingent upon the outcome of this discussion. Further, this is the place to discuss specific sigs, not WT:SIG, which is where the sig policy is discussed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• As an outside observer, I'll chime in and say that the trademark and copyright symbols in the sig are not a good idea, and should stay removed. Even if it's just for style, there's too much chance for confusing new editors or giving the wrong impression to experienced editors that a claim is being made. Copyright is a delicate issue here, and not one we should be taking lightly. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I recall some weeks or months ago there was a complaint about the user called ""Access Denied", for somewhat similar reasons, that it was confusing to newbies. However, they let AD keep his name. I wonder whatever happened to that user? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Itsbydesign

User:Itsbydesign has made many edits and un-constructive reverts at Number Ones: Up Close and Personal and File:Jj noucaptp.jpg over the past two weeks. The user originally uploaded File:Jj noucaptp.jpg on December 30, and I uploaded an different version more than a week later. Since then, User:Itsbydesign has made numerous reverts (as have I, I admit) without discussions.

I started a discussion at Talk:Number Ones: Up Close and Personal concerning the poster and left User:Itsbydesign a message asking them to discuss this matter, but never got a response from the user, while they continued to revert without discussion. I requested User:Legolas2186's assistance in this as he basically sided with me on Talk:Number Ones: Up Close and Personal (which I believe falls under Wikipedia:Third opinion).

The user has also been left many messages on their talk page by other users concerning their disruptive edits. User has also been blocked before for their disruptive edits.

I am aware of the 3RR rule and I understand that I may have broken it within the last week, and if I am punished for it, i'll understand why. I am requesting that he is blocked again for their disruptive edits. Thank you for your time. - Gabe 19 ^{(talk contribs)} 07:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I warned both users shortly before this ANI thread [20] [21]. Itsbydesign replied with "He asked my opinion on the subject matter and I gave him my opinion. He revert an image based upon the criteria I upload the original image. And his rationale was based upon language. This was explained to him twice by different editors. If I feel the image needs to be reverted then I will freely revert the image. Do as you please and I will do the same." I'm not even sure the argument is being made here, let alone the logic behind it. Strictly speaking from a policy point of view, the revision which stands at a low resolution, 200×360, should be used. Other than that, it's all a "I like this version, but not that one" POV. — ξ^xplicit 07:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know what their argument is either concerning the image, but its also edits that they have made on Number Ones: Up Close and Personal. In the edit summary for this edit they say "removed redundant column from tour date table"; I added that column based on the tour itself, it was stated that a song would be dedicated to each city, and that column (properly titled Dedicated song) served the purpose to signify the dedicated song to each city. They even removed the two column addition that was added that organizes the references section. All of this is un-constructive editing. - Gabe 19 ^{(talk contribs)} 08:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm kinda surprised by Itsbydesign's comments and continuing the reversions, even now, 5 mins ago. Is he not concerned with the serious consequences that comes out of it? Oh well, concerned admins here will be a better judge of it, but seeing Itsbydesign's editing hisotry, this is a pattern, of reverting everybody's edits on the musical tour articles. And Gabe19, you should have stopped reverting the image also, and notified admins of this issue. Now you both have been involved too much. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Those comments were made one hour *after* you posted your comments here, not five minutes. What I am not concern with is your thoughts on my edits, since you been trying to get me blocked since you got upset because I removed unverifiable material from Who's That Girl World Tour and you slyly placed my user name in with a sockpuppet case that had nothing to do with my edits or even the subject of the articles I edit. Anytime someone disagrees with my edits, you jump on the wagon to start your attacks. As previously stated, this is all being chronicled and is not going ignored.Itsbydesign (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree Legolas, I admit I should've stopped a long time ago but I think I was just caught up in the moment. Also I didn't know where to report things like this until you told me about ANI, being here this long, you'd think I have known about ANI. - Gabe 19 ^{(talk contribs)} 08:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

As previously stated, when Gabe19 asked for my opinion, I gave it to him. My opinion on this matter has not changed. If you stopped someone on the street and asked, "What's you're opinion on taxes?", they will tell you. You cannot expect to ask the same person the same question two days later and expect the opinion to be different. Gabe19 originally stated that he reverted the edit based upon his opinion that it looks better without text. He made no mention of "official" poster or "small resolution". He then continued to revert the image (after I gave my opinion), only commenting with emoticons and still commenting that the image was revert based on his feeling. He then decides to open a discussion after 9 reverts without zero explanation of reasoning, besides his personal feelings that he expressed earlier. Since Gabe is enjoying playing this game, he seeked the help of Legolas to gain favor, seeing that Legolas has a "vendetta" against me and would side in his favor (as he has made no contact with him/her since July '10 concerning an edit to "Ray of Light" article). Even when an editor independently tried to provide assistance, Gabe still reverted. Throughout this whole ordeal, Gabe19 has made no reasoning for his image besides it being "official". In my message, I advised Gabe that image reverts are meant to enhance the image and a blank poster is not an enhancement over the original image. Additionally, I advised him that image he uploaded did not adhere to the rationale based on the image page and then no response, just a series of reverts. Although the reverts were ridiculous, I feel my actions were justified. If he card so passionately about the subject matter, the discussion would have began after the first revert, not the ninth. Itsbydesign (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Itsbydesign, I have to ask, why did you knot take your argument to the talk page, like I requested?. I'm still not even sure what your argument is. My argument regarding File:Jj noucaptp.jpg was and is simple, its the official poster. The image you uploaded has foreign text and promotes the Hong Kong date, Hong Kong isn't the only date on this tour, besides, this is the English version of WIkipedia, we shouldn't be using images with foreign text, and it isn't a "blank poster", as you you claim. I asked User:Legolas2186 for his opinion based on Wikipedia:Third opinion, and because he is a well-respected editor that has been on Wikipedia for many years. I'm not sure why your even bringing up Ray of Light, but that was what, 6 months ago? What does that have to do with you and your disruptive edits? — Gabe 19 ^{(talk contribs)} 21:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Itsbydesign, I've also battled with you over NKOTBSB Tour & Speak Now Tour and everytime I've tried to make contact, you don't respond. You just revert when I supplied you with references to a venue on for NKOTBSB in Calgary. WestJet (talk) 10:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked user Time Will Say Nothing

Time Will Say Nothing (talk · contribs) (see [22] was indefinitely blocked for legal threats. He is now editing as 87.112.86.251 (talk · contribs), which he admits here [23]. He's been using other IPs as you can see by his statement at Talk:Robert Shaw (theatre director) where he says 'this IP was blocked' whereas in fact that IP has never been blocked. I could go to SPI but I'm wondering if there is anything else that can be done here. My own opinion is that the talk page edits should be deleted and perhaps even page protection is necessary if range blocks aren't practical. Dougweller (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's the previous SPI for reference Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Time Will Say Nothing/Archive. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

87.112.86.251/32 is possible; the others are too many. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

SPI filed Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Meh. He has a huge WP:COMPETENCE problem, mostly just here to disrupt in an SPA area. Community ban him and lets get it over with (sad as I am to say that) --Errant ^(chat!) 09:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of bits out of that talk page that, if not directly legal threats, refer back to the original legal threats (assuming IP identity) in both enforcement and spirit. I leave that to interpretation on if it constitutes the immediate need for a block while the SPI is ongoing. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 09:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protecting the article and talk page would go a long way towards nipping this in the bud, since he's only interested in Robert Shaw. Whacking registered accounts is much easier than short blocks for IPs. AniMate 09:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Really, enough is enough. Talk:Robert Shaw (theatre director) is now filled with time-wasting tendentious editing with completely spurious interpretations of "policy" and accusations against other editors by an indefinitely blocked user, who is openly violating the block, and who has no intention whatsoever of changing. See this Wikiquette Alert, these two previous AN/I discussions, and this AfD for background to this saga. Given the hopping IPs, I'm not sure what another SPI will accomplish. I too would suggest semi-protection of the article talk page. No other IPs have edited it apart from the ones Time Will Say Nothing uses and those of what he calls his "supporters". If they attempt to start editing the article, semi-protection may be required for that as well or putting it under pending changes. He has already attempted to edit it while blocked using his sockpuppet Hohohobo. Voceditenore (talk) 09:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Protection requested --Errant ^(chat!) 09:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Robert Shaw (theatre director) now semi-protected for 1 week [24]. 87.112.86.251 now blocked for one week [25], following this comment (as usual completely wrong) on the IP's talk page. A breathing space, but I'm sure the whole thing will start up again once the page protection and IP block expires, or earlier if he simply changes IPs. Voceditenore (talk) 10:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo posted to the Robert Shaw talk page saying he's removing anything unsourced. It's not just the Robert Shaw page that has been involved, it's his grandfather's article Martin Shaw (composer) and Up to Now (Shaw autobiography) Dougweller (talk) 10:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Those pages probably need semi-protection as well. Doc talk 16:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

TWSN ban proposal

Let's just do this. Please pile on.

• Support Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support editor is just not able to contribute without seeing a conspiracy and throwing out wild accusations --Errant ^(chat!) 09:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support Heiro 10:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support Favonian (talk) 10:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support "At that point it may be that other users who support me will get involved again, although I have asked them not to." Meat puppetry, too, even? Add it to the list. Just too many profound (and most importantly, totally incurable IMHO) problems for one editor to have. Doc talk 13:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support Per nom. Show sockpuppeteers the door. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support (albeit with vague reservations about the wording of "Let's just do this. Please pile on.") I was previously inclined towards accepting that this user had a good faith belief that several dozen Wikipedia editors were all in a conspiracy against him. I am now not so ready to accept that, following his making implications that Babel templates were suggestive of a conflict of interest. That really is too weird! There is no hope of this editor participating without being disruptive. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose ban, but support lengthy block on the order of 1 year. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• support, stuff like removing comments that complain about his edits, derisive comments to the other editors[26][27], claiming that avoiding the block via IP is editing "transparently"[28]. He has not learned to edit collaboratively here, he doesn't want to learn, and he keeps claiming badly-supported stuff about the supposed motivations of other editors. Yep, there seems to be a WP:COMPETENCE problem here. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support (changed my mind to a long block per valid arguments of other editors below, then back to support) primarily to allow editors to revert inappropriate edits by him (and his sock/meat puppets) without running the risk of violating 3RR, which a 1 year block would not accomplish. Normally, I'd prefer a 1 year block, but I'm sure that we have not seen the last of this editor, whose behaviour and attitude have been and continue to be very detrimental both to the project and to its volunteer editors. Would a topic ban (with the topic broadly construed) allow any inappropriate edits to be reverted without violating 3RR? If so, I would support that instead of a site ban. Voceditenore (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban; personally, I don't think their behavious so far has been egregious enough to warrant a ban; I agree there are serious WP:CIR and WP:HEAR issues here, but I think those are best handled through a lengthy block. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • We've had copyright infringement, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, personal attacks, accusations of cyber bullying (which is why I supported his original blocking for his own safety), leagal threats, block evasion/socking and edit warring. All of which is not so much malignent as having a lack of WP:COMPETENCE, I supported a ban because the user creates a lot of drama and until he is able to demonstrate adequate competence should not be unblocked --Errant ^(chat!) 16:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose ban per Sarek and Salvio. Nothing here warrents a full siteban, but a lengthy block several months is obviously needed. -Atmoz (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose; like the opposers above, I do not feel comfortable banning this user. As far as I'm concerned, the disruption has not lasted long enough nor been abusive enough to warrant a ban. I agree that a lengthy block would be better in this case. HeyMid (contribs) 18:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

How long would "long enough" be? He's been displaying the same attitude since at least November 2009. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Still, I do not feel that a ban is the right step to take at this time. HeyMid (contribs) 20:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support Enough is enough. --John (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support I was thinking of not commenting, but things have changed and I now have good reason to believe that this editor's behaviour is not going to change. Dougweller (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support This user has made it quite clear he's more interested in his agenda than building an encyclopedia in a collegiate manner. He has rejected help, tried to game the system and generally displayed complete indifference to other editors concerns. Socking is just icing on the cake. An indef is best until he chooses to change his approach and demonstrates a willingness to learn Wikipedia's processes & follow them. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Question Can someone please explain what the position is re others reverting this editor if he only receives a long block rather than a ban? Will the 3RR still apply to other editors if he is only blocked? This editor will never let go of Robert Shaw (theatre director). Whether it's a block or ban, he will continue his attempts to evade it. He will return again and again to edit war and threaten other editors the minute he thinks the article does not project his desired image of the subject. He will also do this to any other article related to Robert Shaw. He has stated quite plainly, that he is not at interested in contributing anything to Wikipedia, apart from what he is "interested in posting". I understand that some editors have behaved even worse without being site banned. But really, what is the advantage to this project of not showing him the door? A the moment I can see only detriment. Voceditenore (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

  That's exactly the point of a ban; if this user is not banned, 3RR will apply, and one will have to file an SPI and wait for the result before being allowed to fight this; anyone who does so w/o a conclusive SPI-result will likely be blocked for edit-warring. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Topic ban? That's what I thought and changed my !vote above back to support. But if read WP:BAN correctly, a topic ban would also allow reverting without violating the 3RR rule. If so, would the opposers here go for that in lieu of a full site ban? I'd support that. Besides, even bans aren't permanent, he can always appeal it later. Voceditenore (talk) 08:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Same difference; either way will work just fine, since he's explicitly stated he doesn't have any interest in other topics. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support - This user has selective reading issues, and responds to calm words with thunderous rebuttals that generate more heat than light. And, unlike Salvio giuliano and anyone else basing their opposes on his rationale, I heavily doubt a lengthy block will calm him down; if anything blocks have thus far only exacerbated the situation, as he's threatened to report blocking admins to the UK police for violation of cyberbullying laws (nevermind that he's been told that Wikipedia is only bound to United States laws). If there were even a small hope for an epiphany here, I'd oppose, but honestly this man is on a mission from God, and heaven help anyone who even breathes in his direction. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 04:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support - This user is clearly interested in doing propaganda instead of contributing to an encyclopedia. And with that said, enough is enough. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support site ban. User is clearly a net negative to the project, and IP socking for block evasion shows contempt for Wikipedia policy. In response to those favouring a long block instead, note that the Standard Offer applies. LK (talk) 08:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I've supported the ban, but as I'd originally suggested a topic ban on any articles related to the Shaw family I'll support that as an alternative if that's more attractive to those who don't want a site ban. Dougweller (talk) 09:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Thing is, he's already shown a willingness to agree to a condition, then violate it immediately. Even if we topic ban him, this is his only area of interest and I expect he'll go straight back to editing there once unblocked. Or, at the very least, disrupting talk pages of those articles as he has been wont to do. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

George H. Moody Middle School

We need more eyes on this article; I am walking away from it before I breach WP:3RR (if I have not already). A bunch of editors who I imagine are affiliated with the school are trying quite aggressively to add what seems like unencyclopedic and promotional material to the school's article. I had a go at trimming out the crap about who the music teacher currently is and so on, and was reverted. I tried adding tags, and was reverted. I will not edit this article again. The editors who may need to be spoken to include:

• Indextookviewsgoals (talk · contribs · logs)
• 74.110.198.236 (talk · contribs · logs)
• Encyclopedia Geek (talk · contribs · logs)
• Wkpdn (talk · contribs · logs)

I blocked the first editor but have now unblocked as I was too involved to have used admin tools. Maybe someone else can handle this better than I apparently have. Good luck. --John (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• As I have just noted on the talk page, the very existence of this article is out of line with how we generally do school articles. I have suggested it be redirected. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Some featured school articles cover exactly the same yeargroups as the article in question, so "generally do" isn't very meaningful. Anyway, it's fine to discuss that on the talk page in question. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

User:IndoWarrior making threats

User:IndoWarrior is making intimidating threats at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Proofs against the hypothesis of Aryan Invasion - "With proof, we are going to make a documentary on how wiki manipulates and blacks out important proofs and know ledge" and "Conclusion: Wiki is just a western outlet for biased non-cohesive content trying to spread fake propaganda. This practice is abhorrent and will be discussed in future videos in youtube." Not sure if anything needs to be done at this stage. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

User warned, article deleted as copyvio (predictably), AfD closed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The AfD talk page hasn't been closed, IndoWarrior is still using it to rant...GiantSnowman 22:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk page now closed. We'll see if that shuts it down. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

User:King of Myth creating hoax articles

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

King of Myth (talk · contribs) is creating loads of hoax articles. A block might be appropriate. Corvus cornix_talk 22:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Also  Confirmed:

• ScarlettRedRose (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Nelso 67 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

 IP blocked. –MuZemike 22:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• It was Jake Picasso (talk · contribs) again. Fences&Windows 02:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks and repeated accusations from User:Py0alb

I recently responded to a query from this user on the help desk, and as a result of the discussion, the user indicated that they had been warned for vandalism on a page, and that 7 different editors had been reverting them; they also indicated that they had been "blocked" from editing the paragraph they wished to change, which I took to mean that they had been blocked from editing wikipedia. Given that the user's only contributions were to the help desk, it appeared to be a case of block evasion and I filed an SPI regarding the apparent block evasion (or at the least an attempt to avoid scrutiny, since the user has avoided several requests to provide diffs, an article, or any others details about the incident to which (s)he was referring at WP:HD). Another user pointed out that I may have misinterpreted the user stating they had been "blocked", which may be true, I'm uncertain. However, the main issue is that the user has since made repeated accusations that I have some sort of personal issue with him/her and repeatedly accused me of "personal slurs" wherever possible, which is a personal attack, imho. Some diffs: [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]. I have done my best to ignore the accusations, but it's bordering on harrassment now, and the user even reinstated an edit I removed from my talk page while I was writing this thread. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Note that I am willing to accept that my premise for the SPI report may have been a misunderstanding, and I said as much when another user pointed that out in the SPI, but it certainly wasn't a groundless or frivolous SPI. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Giftiger! I hope you are well :-) Look, you know as well as I do that if any of the admins would be interested in looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Py0alb then it becomes very quickly clear that you were the one attacking me and I was the one attempting to defend myself from some unpleasant and unwarranted accusations. Either way, your behaviour in this matter is not particularly befitting of a senior wikipedia editor. I wholeheartedly welcome an investigation into the origins of this extremely weird dispute Py0alb (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a reasonable mistake over some confusing wording, for which he has apologised. But there was nothing unreasonable. I recommend instead of making vague statements about how badly your edits have been treated (it happens more than it should, sadly) either show us some examples or just head off to work on content. Mildly uncivil comments to other editors are not helpful --Errant ^(chat!) 23:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I respect your opinion as I've seen you around a lot Errant, but do you really feel that the comments in the diffs I provided amount to "mildly uncivil comments"? I only really consider a couple of them actual personal attacks (the ones which I redacted), and perhaps when taken in isolation the comments don't warrant sanction, but the combined repeated unsupported accusations of bad faith and personal attacks despite both warnings and explanations from me speaks of combined problems with WP:HOUND, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF in my albeit involved opinion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It's late, incoherence is a trait for me at this point ;) you're right, I'd say mildly uncivil on their own, all together a case of friendly advice to drop the stick and leave you alone. I'm usually in favour of considering these sorts of things misunderstandings born out of a perceived upset, but the reply below suggests a reasonable explanation won' work. *shrug* Certainly Py0alb should be chilling out and not chasing (I hesitate to make a full suggestion of hounding) you. --Errant ^(chat!) 00:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Who has apologised? giftiger certainly hasn't, unless filing a complaint making further accusations is some new method of apologising. I am more than happy to leave this alone and move on, this is not what I envisaged the outcome to be when I tried to make a helpful suggestion on the helpdesk. I just felt I should make a brief comment to defend myself from yet another unwarranted accusation. Certainly he should drop the stick and leave you alone

I have been waiting for an apology from giftiger for a number of false allegations all day and I am still waiting. I won't hold my breath --- Sorry if that was confusing, my computer logged me out for some reason Py0alb (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems the article in question was Spin bowling, then, and that by "blocked", Py0alb meant their changes were rejected in a pending changes-protected article. Frankly a good portion of this fiasco could have been avoided if the user had indicated the specific incident in the first place. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

As they say, it is better to wait for an apology than to keep demanding one. By continuing to demand one, any apology you would get is guaranteed to not be sincere. –MuZemike 09:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

BLP concerns in userspace?

Can someone take a look at this userpage and tell me if it's alarming? In my mind, it's okay to out yourself as a 13 year old by name, but not other 13 year olds. tedder (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I see it was deleted. FYI, in future it is best to take things like that to WP:OVERSIGHT via email due to it being an outing (i.e. to avoid the risk of publicising it more :)). --Errant ^(chat!) 23:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and will do. I couldn't remember if it was a problem or I would have started with that (or an admin-level revdelete at least). tedder (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, anything which may be considered personally identifiable information directed another wikipedia editor should go straight to oversight, especially when minors are involved. If you're unsure, contact oversight. It's better to be told by an oversighter than it's not oversightable than to spread an outing further. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Oversight requested. Skier Dude (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Superpolochile

This is the second time I'm reporting Superpolochile (talk · contribs · logs) This is a WP:SPA. He has been warned several times against deleting sourced content and adding promotional giant pictures[34]. Can anything be done about this? I don't know if a page protection will suffice.Likeminas (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for disruption. He's been over-warned and knows what he's doing isn't acceptable. KrakatoaKatie 04:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

184.75.57.250

Resolved

 – Blocked for 31 hours by User:Nakon. JoeSperrazza (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

IP account that has been engaged in vandalism since October of 2010, can it be blocked? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/184.75.57.250

It already has been. In the future, WP:AIV is the proper place to report this sort of thing. --Jayron32 06:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Labra65 masquerading as admin

Resolved

 – indef blocked by Adambro (talk · contribs)

See: Labra65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --Shirt58 (talk) 10:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Already blocked. Pedro :  Chat  10:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Query

Isn't there a banned editor whose specialty, before they were banned, was articles about higher mathematics? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Review editor "Johnny Cache"? I cannot recall his WP username. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Twobells

The above user is engaging in an edit war at Richard I of England, repeatedly removing sourced information ([35] [36] [37] [38] [39]) against consensus (consensus demonstrated: [40] [41]). Nev1 (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)