Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive653

Warned user. If they persist (and they did only make one edit today, their first in months), please re-report. TNXMan 17:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

There is huge amount of vandalism at 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cup bids and Qatar 2022 FIFA World Cup bid after FIFA announced Russia and Qatar won, can some admin lock them? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• You might want to do something about the several empty sections in the article that are the magnets for the soapboxing in the first place. Uncle G (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Both are now semi-protected for a day. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – IP blocked

Hey guys, I'm not 100% sure on how effective blocking anon vandals is, but I would like to bring your attention to the above user. If you check the IP's contributions for 2010, they a peppered with a racist remarks to one degree or another. Especially concerning is the edit on March 23 of this year (which I will not link to) that I just deleted. I don't know what is more concerning...this IP's vandalism...or the fact that the remark was on the talk page of a BLP since March. I'll post a notice about this to the IP now. Thanks, The Eskimo (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, looks like

Orange Mike indef blocked the IP, so hopefully that will stop the pattern of behavior. Now, if only we could indef block racism... The Eskimo (talk

) 17:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

A couple of questions: Is it proper to block an IP that hasn't edited in months? Is it reasonable to indefinetely block an IP address? This seems kind of harsh for vandalism of the type I see around here all the time. (I'm not necessarily complaining, just curious more than anything.) Deli nk (talk) 17:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The only reason I did this was that this account has a record going back over three years and more of nothing but vandalisms, consistently in the form of racist, sexist, and "everybody's a commie pinko fag" insults. This is apparently a stable IP, and one which has contributed absolutely nothing but hatred for years without heeding any warnings (including a prior block). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur. There was definitely a pattern of behavior here that indicates it was the same person vandalizing over and over again. Better safe than sorry, I say, especially since they managed to slip the "N-word" onto a BLP talk page that remained for over half a year. The Eskimo (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Thanks for the explanation. Deli nk (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Mclaudt (talk · contribs)

This discussion (link fixed) shows community consensus to unblock the editor in question but the block has not yet been lifted, and the thread has been archived. Can some admin please perform the unblock? I don't think it would be fair for the editor to be inadvertently forgotten. Reyk _YO! 22:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

here is the link. There was sort of weak support and a proposal to make the "standard offer". Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact that it was a "community ban" makes it complicated (needlessly, IMHO) in discussion without clear consensus like this; since I can't overrule the community, I feel my hands are tied in coming up with a compromise without having a whole new discussion. I suggest something that was toyed with before during the community ban discussion: a topic ban from Linux or any other free software topic. Plus, he needs to know he's on his ninth life as far as insulting other editors is concerned. If he goes for those terms, I'd unblock. Any objections? Do we need to notify the opposers in the previous unban discussion? I hate community bans. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. There are more supports than opposes but it's all very thin and weak. I'd go with a ban from Linux/free software for 6 months and then reviewed, with an understanding of a swift re-block if there's any repeat of previous problematic behaviour.Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless the definition has changed at some point, a community ban has always been simply a block that no administrator is willing to lift. That language continues to exist on

 ۩ Mask

02:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, what you pointed out is a discrepancy in 2 different policies. In

banning policy, ban can be imposed when the subject "exhausted the community's patience". And right now this scenario fits into both sides. What happens when there's no clear consensus but there're admins (i.e. me and maybe others) who're willing to unblock? OhanaUnited^{Talk page}

04:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I would probably say the original, but im biased towards what im used to. The wordings been tweaked a bit over the years, but is largely as I remember it. There was an Arbcom case the first time there was literally a single admin willing to unblock who actually did. Basic result of the case was, as far as I remember, going against consensus is a BAD idea, but reblocking without a new offense is wheel-warring, and if the user effs up in the slightest a new indefinite block is not wheel-warring. A kind of slowly evolved organic social contract developed with it that if your the only one willing to spring them then they're your responsibility. All this dates back to like 2007 though, hence my prefacing all of this with references to whether or not it still applies. I largely lapsed out of the wiki for 3 years or so, things like the exhausting the patience of the community came about during that time, so I dont know if they supersede that or not. --

 ۩ Mask

05:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• This is silly. I saw a very weak willingness to unblock; I've gone ahead and offered him the topic ban option, which might win over those weakly opposed to the unblock. We'll see what he has to say. --Floquenbeam (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I think the restrictions you've offered as conditions for an on Mclaudt's talk page are fair. If Mclaudt agrees to them they will do a lot to keep him out of the areas that got him into trouble before without being so restrictive that it makes an eventual slip-up inevitable. I appreciate you spending some time with this. Reyk _YO! 08:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• I've unblocked Mclaudt, based on his acceptance of the topic ban and other restrictions that can be seen on his talk page. Consensus was relatively weak, but I suppose detectable enough to provide me with cover against accusations I'm a cowboy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Is the topic ban going to be dropped automatically after 6 months if there's no trouble? Or discussion about the removal of topic ban can only begin after 6 months? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• • • I intended (and I think my wording agrees) that discussion can only begin after 6 months. However, I don't think it makes that much difference; if there's no trouble for 6 months, allowing him back into the topic would probably be OK'd here pretty quickly. If there is trouble, then he'll likely be blocked again and it won't matter. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It is apparently the time of year when the newest incarnation of the Super Sentai franchise begins to be leaked to the internet. The name of this incarnation has been known since August as that's when the trademarks were filed in Japan, but earlier tonight scans of some proprietary catalog (at least that's as far as I know the source of these images are) have come online, and I feel that within the next 24 hours there will be a heightened level of activity on the various articles I normally deal with.

I would like to know if it would be proper to protect a few page titles from creation for the next couple of weeks until reliable sources actually make their way to the general public, rather than a leak by a Japanese internet citizen who works in the industry and provides the fans with the information. The titles, as far as I am aware, would be as follows:

• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• Kaizoku Sentai Gookaiger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kaizoku Sentai Gokaiger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kaizoku Sentai Gōkaiger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• Goukaiger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• Gookaiger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Gokaiger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• Gōkaiger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Go-kaiger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have already seen activity announcing the subject as existing, with these edits from earlier tonight and this one from yesterday, as well as edits over the past several months since the name was made publically known in the Japanese language.

So could these 10 page titles be protected from creation for the next two weeks or until reliable sources come out (whichever comes first, of course)?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit dodgy to protect never-created article names owing to a fear that good faith but unsourced content will show up under them (this doesn't seem to be a vandalism worry). You might watchlist all of them instead. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:NO-PREEMPT is pretty clear about it I'm afraid :-( Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk

) 10:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

So what should I do should these pages crop up in the next few days, and they're full founverifiable content based on the speculation and poor translation skills of the English speaking fan community?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Would it be possible to create the pages now, as redirects to some heavily-watched relevant super-page? That might serve to direct the edits to that page, where they can be easily caught and properly discussed (important if the editors are acting in good faith: they can be taught), and will also allow any relevant, sourced information to be added to a subsection. 86.161.108.241 (talk) 10:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, the issue still stands that there are no easily accessible reliable sources. I am looking at the trademark registrations for the subject, but the IPDL cannot be linked to easily. I have seen Web Citation used, but I do not know how to use it myself.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it truly an emergency? I don't see BLP or vandalism worries with this, only a foreseen lag between content and sources, along with some fears of weak writing. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I was looking for input on what might be an issue given how things have panned out in the past and how they are starting to repeat themselves.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Some of the edits I was apprehensive about happened. But at this stage it was only red links made [3] [4] [5] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Super_Sentai&diff=prev&oldid=400118283.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I do think you should handle it as you see fit and if there is anything an admin can do, don't be shy. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a frequently-contentious article, even by those of us who get along in general, because of the strict standards we attempt to impose on it to prevent its being too much of a hodge-podge. We have a user who insists, despite lengthy talk page discussion, that he has a right to post a particular theory despite the lack of consensus to do so. He was doing this a couple of weeks ago, and is now getting into an edit war about it.

Since the user won't pay attention to those of us who comprise the Great Unwashed, I wonder if one of the admins with a good way with words would share one or two of those words with the user.

The user has edited under both the registered ID TheThomas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and the logged-out IP 72.187.199.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There is no accusation of sockpuppetry here, as he has freely admitted jumping from one to the other. The issue is strictly that his behavior is getting excessively disruptive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me echo Baseball Bugs' concerns. This user apparently thinks he constitutes a consensus of one person, despite being told repeatedly there is no such thing. He first tried to restore contentious material "under the radar" by editing as an IP with no edit summary. When called on that, he waited a couple of weeks, then restored the same contentious material (again with a "consensus" of one person), stating "Added back in due to lack of consensus". Note also that the same editor has tried to add a variety of items to the same page over a period of the last couple of months. Some were accepted without serious objection. So we have taken the time to consider his edits and, when needed, discuss them. But he can't seem to accept the absence of consensus (or any support, for that matter) on this particular item that he has repeatedly restored. Cresix (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

He's also issued a gratuitous "edit-warring" warning to me due to the fact that I removed the blatant falsehood that "birds are dinosaurs". That's a minor issue, but an example of the user's disruptive behavior. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Did the same to me after I reverted him one time. Cresix (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Most appropriate place for this is the edit warring noticeboard Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. He hasn't violated 3RR that I know of. His biggest transgression is not respecting the consensus process, not edit warring per se. Cresix (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Informed TheThomas of this discussion. Please remember that you must notify the subject(s) of ANI threads. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I notified him before I posted here. He deleted it. And this is not just about edit warring. Take a look at his little user page manifesto which is largely about being confrontational.[6] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I was careful to check the history for that before notifying him; I noticed you mentioned that you would be taking it to ANI, but not that you had done so. It's important to notify users that there is an ongoing discussion about them at ANI so that they may contribute / defend themselves as necessary. In any case it's done now. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Here[7] I told him that I was just about to post at ANI. That was after I had warned him that if he reverted again I was going to do so; and it was before I posted here. So I informed him, and you informed him. So hopefully he's sufficiently informed, at least on that particular point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought

Birds are considered "an extant clade of dinosaurs". That doesn't mean that birds are dinosaurs. In any case, the editor refuses to discuss it. That's an interesting idea about posting to the ref desk, though. I'll give that a try and see what the opinions are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Anon 108, sorry if I am misunderstanding your comment. The issue in this ANI report isn't about birds and dinosaurs. It's about repeatedly adding contentious information (which itself has nothing to do with birds and dinosaurs) without consensus. Cresix (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(@ BaseBall Bugs:) I've never heard of a "Clade of Dinosaurs", but then again I only recently heard that it is called a "Kettle of Vultures". Hope the Ref. Desk sorts all that out for you. 108.121.139.247 (talk) 01:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Not to turn this into a list of cute phrases, but I thought "Murder of crows" should get the absurd phrase award until I saw your "Kettle of vultures". Cresix (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

See here Clade, applies to all organisms, not just dinosaurs, is a term for classifying an organism and its descendants. Heiro 01:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

"A Clade of Organisms/Dinosaurs". Just found "a Battery of Barracudas" as well. Does Wikipedia have an article on the names of gathered animals? 108.121.139.247 (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you being intentionally obtuse,or have you not read clade. I is not a name specific to dinosaurs. It is a term describing the relationship between different species. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I have asked for help on this point at the science ref desk. My question is solely "are birds dinosaurs?" I'll be glad to restore that point to the misconceptions article IF it's considered to be true by the experts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Origin of birds. Heiro 01:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact that it calls it "a contentious topic" is sufficient to keep it out of the misconceptions article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(@Grumpy) I found the article:

Lists of collective nouns It is quite extensive. 108.121.139.247 (talk

) 01:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it tad strange, that an IP (108.121.139.247) which has only been on line for less the an hour, knew exactly where WP:ANI was? I sense a block evader amongst us. GoodDay (talk) 02:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Let's assume good faith here. There hasn't been any misbehavior, and there is such a thing as a dynamic IP. Cresix (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • A newbie shows up & comes directly here? something is fishy, but I'll leave it up to you folks. GoodDay (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, definitely suspicious, but he hasn't overtly violated any rules that we know of.

      Regarding the dinosaurs-birds issue, I think the "misconception" needs to be reworded. Would that the subject of this section would address that point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Well I've been spit on enough for tonight, but I will make one last comment. In response to GoodDay's less than polite comments here and at my original IP talk: AGF should not be too far of a stretch for those that understand Dynamic IP's. If you don't understand them, or on IP's being allowed to edit, you might want to do more reading and less typing for awhile. In fact I have been here for several years editing anonymously. And yes, I do know my way around a bit. When policy dictates that I can no longer edit as an IP, I won't. When my ISP assigns me a permanent address, continuity of my edits will be apparent. Until one of those things happens, I may appear to have no history, or I may appear to have the history that is in fact that of another/others. GoodDay's edits to/about me could be construed as both rude and as a personal attack. Do you have a diff from me that warranted your comments? Looks like I might have pointed Bugs in the right direction with the Ref. Desk. He seems to be making good progress on the Bird/Dinosaur issue. Sorry about the drama. 108.111.90.165 (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • If you had created an account & signed in, I wouldn't have become suspicious. Anyways, do as you wish. GoodDay (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    • You look on him differently because he has no account? You do realize that's admitting to violating a couple policies, right?
       ۩ Mask
      06:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
      • As I've accepted the IP's status as not being a block-evading editor, my previous concerns are irrelevant. As for growing-up? I'm 6ft in height & in my late 30's - therefore I can't grow any further. GoodDay (talk) 07:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't see how it's unreasonable to assume this was a newcomer in the first place, especially when ANI is the very first venue. That being said, using dynamic IPs which are assigned out of the user's control is very much possible. –MuZemike 07:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay, you need to read and digest Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet. This noticeboard has made the newspapers long since. It's not exactly an unknown little corner of Wikipedia. You need to eliminate from your thinking the notion that people who don't create accounts are automatically third-class citizens contributing in bad faith. That thinking is something that regularly gets people into trouble, from people who get de-Twinkled for erroneously treating edits as vandalism to people who find themselves heavily criticized for excluding policy-based and cogent arguments for no good reason. Uncle G (talk) 11:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, but past experience has caused me to think in the manner that I do. IMHO, it takes very little effort to create an account & sign in. PS: If anybody has any thing more to say to me on this topic? please bring those concerns to my office (i.e. my talkpage). GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Past experience is not an excuse for a blanket and automatic assumption that editors without accounts operate in bad faith, even were it to support such a conclusion in the first place (which it usually doesn't once one looks at the sum total of one's experiences). Uncle G (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

There is two cases that I have repeatedly added sourced material (usually days apart), which has then been repeatedly reverted by Cresix or Baseball Bugs.

1) I go to the talk page, discuss the removal. I get no response for five days, then I add in the removed piece--"Added back in due to lack of consensus or reasoning for removal". That is my understanding of consensus by

2) The second case in which I post material repeatedly (again, days apart) is when the complaint against my material is that the source is bad (broken link, not specific, not a strong enough study). In which case I go find a study which meets the reasonable requirement set by the objecting party, and reinsert the material. Which is my understanding of consensus. Both parties (myself and objector) agree that the article could use stronger supporting references, then I add the references after waiting for any other objections.

I have tried, multiple times, inserting new material directly into the discussion section--in order to skip the insert/delete/insert/delete phase. This has resulted in zero, zero, responses. So, I must put the material into the page to test whether these two will delete it. So far, my experience has been that these two will delete anything they have once removed--no matter how many times I meet their requests for better documentation of the appropriateness of my inserted statement.

The short version; these two are repeatedly deleting good, sourced information without reason, or having given a reasonable standard to meet, deleting after the standard is met. That is edit-warring, and it is bad for wikipedia. Effective discussion has ended, since no reason is given for repeatedly deleting material--besides the circular reason, 'no consensus for addition.' TheThomas (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)72.187.99.79 (talk) 07:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

'Consensus for addition' is not policy of an unchallenged edit. It is the opposite of policy.

WP:CONLIMITED

Only when an edit is removed, and in the discussion or edit note, there is listed a reason for removal, which isn't addressed, is consensus needed. The edits I have repeatedly put in with more, and more, sources were not in need of consensus.

WP:SILENCE

Note: for the character of these edit wars. In this discussion section Baseball Bugs states that I warned him not to edit war after he repeatedly removed material. He feels he was in the right simply because he thinks what I put was " the blatant falsehood that 'birds are dinosaurs'." Apparently, not knowing much about dinosaurs, he feels he is the ultimate judge here. Despite me linking to the

Birds

article which I was very nearly quoting. The truth wasn't important to him, the quality of references weren't important. What was? His opinion, that's what.

This occurred again with the first iteration of another statement I have been trying to edit into this article. He started the discussion by simply saying, 'no that's wrong'. Without knowing a damned thing about the subject he feels he can flout peer-review, and professional opinions I cited [8]. At this point it has five separate references for one sentence. Not enough? Not if opinion is more important than fact. Having just two sentences in the conversation--one accusing me of being a shill for a corporation--he then baldly asserts "Yes, it's settled: It doesn't belong in the article." The conversation was between me and one other person(Cresix), no consensus whatsoever. Why is it settled? Cuz Bugs says so.

As for Cresix. He thinks I am bound by rules that he really doesn't pay attention to.

Don't revert due to 'no consensus'

". He repeatedly says I can't enter things into this article without first having consensus. Guess who's consensus. Bug's and Cresix's. The only two people in the discussion channel. Bugs says no to everything he doesn't understand. With a three person vote, it will always be Cresix that decides the vote...this is not an excellent system. Ownership! Wikipedia policy states that "no consensus" for adding an edit is NOT a reason for keeping that edit out, except in highly refined pages, which this is not. Consensus is for removing material, but this bureaucrat missed that part, and repeats the circular reasoning, "No consensus to make any of the changes currently under discussion." Oddly enough, he usually doesn't even bother to claim a problem with an edit, just says there is no consensus.

As for the particular accusations : "We have a user who insists, despite lengthy talk page discussion, that he has a right to post a particular theory despite the lack of consensus to do so." -- I have no idea what this is referring to. Nearly everything I have posted (all with citations) has been immediately reverted. Often while displaying a lack of understanding in the appropriate field of knowledge. Note "Birds are dinosaurs."

"This user apparently thinks he constitutes a consensus of one person, despite being told repeatedly there is no such thing." --This is wrong. A consensus by silence is a consensus of one person. Which I have been clear about. If no one discusses any complaint about an edit for five days I put it in b/c that makes sense. "Of course, it is impractical to wait forever for affirmation: in the meantime then, sometimes it is best to assume that silence implies consensus." WP:SILENCE

"He first tried to restore contentious material "under the radar" by editing as an IP with no edit summary." --Yes...all edits that aren't declared as "Hey Cresix, I'm editing" are insidious...

Cresix claims, TheThomas gave a gratuitous warning "...to me after I reverted him one time." In fact, nearly all my (many, cited) edits were reverted by one of these two users.

I'm simply trying to make this article better by adding well-sourced material. Unfortunately, instead of this being a cooperative activity it has become a competitive one.TheThomas (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

At this diff User:68.96.242.239 aka "Will" admits he's a sock of a banned IP (but not whether he also as another wikipedia account), admits he's working for/represents the subject of BLP and threatens legal action against Wikipedia if it doesn't shape up and keep critical WP:RS material off the page. (Specifically that Libertarian Party of FL resolved he should be taken off the Libertarian National Committee, information on their web site, one solid WP:RS and one more news site which probably could be contested.) I warned "Will" about these issues and recommended he email wikipedia with complaints.

I also posted about these issues at Talk:Wayne_Allyn_Root#Conflict_of_Interest_v._POV. I'm pretty sure my notice will be ignored. Until Admins deal with this issue, I will refrain from posting the info in question again (which he's deleted 3 times from original editor, a second editor and me after I added better WP:RS). [Later note: since someone else reverted the material noting COI, I just added the relevant link as ref.] CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Indef'd. I did not see where he claimed to be a sock, would you please post a dif link of that specific here or on my talk page? Thank you. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps that was the OP's interpretation of "And please remove the ban on my IP address" on the IP's talk page? - David Biddulph (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense. I'd like to know the other IP, but I hardly think the editor will give it now. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

On November 26, User:Umutcan123456 was indef blocked for wikistalking and overall nonconstructive activity on other user talk pages, especially mine (see User talk:Eagles247/Archive 16). He posted an unblock request earlier today [9] threatening that if the request was declined, he would log out and edit as an IP. He also stated that he has already begun editing as an IP when his first unblock request was declined on November 26. Is this possible for a blocked user to simply log out and edit as an IP? If so, can a CheckUser block his IP? Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not possible for a block user to log out and edit as an IP. An 'autoblock' should kick in and block the associated IP as soon as it tries to edit. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Without resorting to comments prohibited by

WP:BEANS, if the user is savvy enough to be able to reset his IP (not an overwhelming intellectual hurdle), autoblocks become ineffective.—Kww(talk

) 21:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The autoblock only runs for 24 hours. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 00:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I remember that guy. Annoying troll, to be honest, and a CU would be nice if a rangeblock is feasible, which I think may not be. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I gave DD2K this warning for edit warring, I had warned the other party, TVC 15 as well. While TVC 15 took the time to respond to it in a polite manner, DD2K decided to warn me for "improper use" of a warning template. Which do you think was the right thing to do? Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit war? What edit war? I do not see any edit war. :-) I only see the two editors reverting each other only once in the recent history of the article. Where is the 3RR violation? [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 00:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was an incorrect use of a warning template. I was not in any edit war, and only removed the material recently added by that user improperly. There are no

talk

) 00:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring is not just 3RR. It's refusal to collaborate with other editors on controversial edits. Also: I would like someone other that DD2K or TVC 15 to comment please. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The issue perhaps is what looks like a "brewing" edit war, with the two editors sniping at each other in the edit summaries, with comments they should confine (and refine) to the talk page. TVC 15 is a relative newbie, whereas DD2K has been around for about a year, so he probably didn't appreciate getting templated, especially when he had only reverted once, so Bart jumped the gun a bit. But the users need to use the article talk page to discuss, rather than trying to do it in the edit summaries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Also: Note the DISCUSS part of the BRD cycle... Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

Yes, please do note the "DISCUSS" portion of

talk

) 00:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

DD2K has cited WP:BRD, but it does not support DD2K's position; in fact, it says, "BRD is not a process that you can require other editors to follow. BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes." Also, some of the material that DD2K reverted was sourced accurately to the United States Department of Health and Human Services; I restored it and added a direct quote and links to the Congressional Budget Office report saying the same thing. I think anyone comparing DD2K's comments here to the actual edits and WP:BRD will see that DD2K is perhaps distracted in preparation for a vacation, and not noticing what the pages say.TVC 15 (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, after you were reverted the first time, you should have gone to the talk page with it. Edit warring is futile. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks but it is not entirely accurate to summarize the edit as solely a revert, let alone an edit war: DD2K objected to sources, so I added the CBO as a source and quoted directly from a CBO report, thus addressing the stated objection. We are discussing it on my Talk page, where I have also offered that if DD2K identifies any particular statement as unsupported, I will try to replace it with an official quote.TVC 15 (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I specifically did not add in another revert on that article, even though you restored the exact same material with the exact same sources, to avoid an edit war. Hoping that either someone else would see the violations or I would post to your talk page. Yea, nobody can force you to discuss the edits. But it's part of the process.

talk

) 00:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I get the idea that TVC 15 is more at fault here than DD2K. DD2K made only one revert. But TVC 15 then restored his edits (the problem) without discussion. If there is any problem here with any of these two that I can see, it would probably be that. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 00:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Please check the diff[10] before jumping to any conclusion. As the diff clearly shows, my "revert" did in fact address DD2K's objection about sources, specifically by quoting from and linking to the CBO, as well as narrowing the phrasing to match the

WP:RS more closely. Also, it seems strange to call me "more at fault" (for a war that didn't happen) when DD2K's statement immediately above ("exact same material with the exact same sources") is demonstrably false. Facts do matter, and I think it would be more helpful to devote this time to getting the facts right in the article rather than opining about fault (especially without even checking diffs).TVC 15 (talk

) 00:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

There's been a lot of IP vandalism on Qatar after the FIFA2022 announcement. I had it on semi earlier today but would be nice if it could stay clear. Would appreciate some extra eyes on it. Thanks. Ronnotel (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Added to my watchlist. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Somebody semiprotected anyway. I did my best. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Some seriously upset soccer fans out there, I guess. Thanks for trying. Ronnotel (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I just found an old edit filter log entry sitting around from a few weeks ago which is 100% outing of another editor. Can developers delete the entry, and where can I get the quickest response?

The fastest way to contact a developer is in #wikimedia-tech on irc.freenode.net. Nakon 02:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually an

oversighter has the ability now to remove AbuseFilter log entries from the public. --Bsadowski1

03:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

When did they fix that? I guess I missed it... Dragons flight (talk) 04:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In principle, a developer with shell access (this list) could delete an edit filter log. I'm unaware of any circumstance where they have actually done so. The lack of better mechanism to remove edit filter logs has been considered a major unresolved bug. Dragons flight (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

As BSadowski said - email the diff to oversight-en-wp‐at‐wikipedia.org  7  03:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Email sent, thanks everyone.

Denied

03:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The paranoia about "outing" is excessive. The Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy [11] only requires that information only available by "non-publicly-available methods" not be released. That refers only to logs and information available to admins and above. If personally identifiable information available to any user appears on Wikipedia, that is not a violation of policy. It may be deleted for the usual reasons for deletion, but it's not an emergency situation. --John Nagle (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Sarah Palin presidential campaign, 2012 is now at RfD; user has been advised not to renominate for speedy deletion after they've been declined. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

William S. Saturn (talk · contribs) is tendentiously and perhaps pointily retagging this for CSD. He is being rude to me. I literally lack the energy to deal with it. Past my physical limits. Could someone please look at this? thanks. Dlohcierekim 04:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

(notified)Good night! Dlohcierekim 04:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I've declined the tag with a clear reason in the edit summary. This should go to RfD. --

Mkativerata (talk

) 04:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I've nominated it at RfD; see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 3 — Gavia immer (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, hopefully this will take the heat off it. --

Mkativerata (talk

) 05:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Why am I being dragged on here again? I followed all procedures and had my good faith tagging rollbacked as vandalism. The two admins that abused this feature should have it revoked. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

::RHaworth's tag reversion was improperly marked minor and had no edit summary. Dlohcierekim's accused William S. Saturn of "vandalism", and was also marked minor. Both administrators should know better, so two trouts there. One can understand why an editor would restore an edit reverted without explanation or with only of a false accusation of vandalism. Not the wisest move so a trout there, but understandable. Better to simply remove the tag with a "speedy declined, this is not an obvious case for deletion", and for all parties to use the talk page, right? So trouts all around. Three trouts! - Wikidemon (talk) 06:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC) striking my comment as redundant - the trouts say it all - Wikidemon (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• William, you can only tag pages for speedy deletion once. Once declined, it has to go to XfD. It's now at XfD, so there's nothing further to do here. Note for future however, if the speedy deletion template has been removed by someone other than the creator, take it to XfD; speedy deletion isn't for controversial cases. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that the nomination was declined until Mkativerata's final removal of the tag. Reverting something as vandalism or with no explanation at all is not the same as declining a request. It's actually not much of anything. I would tend to summarily undo an unexplained revert of a viable edit I had made, if I didn't notice it came from an administrator or established editor, and I would be piqued if they made block threats or filed AN/I reports over it before trying to discuss - that looks a bit tendentious. That's the kind of random noise you just have to deal with when you edit here, and I hope admins can be careful enough not to contribute to the noise. Ideally William S. Saturn would have noticed that it was an administrator who removed the tag, and in lieu of an edit summary asked on their talk page if they had intended to decline the nomination, hence the third trout. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Removing the tag is declining the speedy, and may be done by anyone other than the creator of the page. Once removed, the speedy should not be replaced. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree on all counts. Deleting a tag without explanation is not correct procedure, and he who does not follow procedure is in a poor position to insist on procedure being followed. Anyway, looking at the subtext,

what we've got here is (a) failure to communicate. It's pretty hard to follow the flurry of talk page comments, but here is an edit that does show that he should have known the intent was to decline the speedy nomination. That was a few minutes before his third and final attempt to add the tag, so I think at that point he was indeed being unreasonable (counter to my earlier observation). I'm still sticking with my trouts though. - Wikidemon (talk

) 10:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidemon and I also deserve a little trout for the block threat in my edit summary, in light of the earlier circumstances. --

Mkativerata (talk

) 10:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment made after "resolved" and after getting up this morning to better expalin myself. My apologies for needing a trout. As I noted when I started this thread I was past exhausted and unable to deal with it or William. That's why I brought it here. I did not merely rollback as vandalism. (Though disruption would have been a better term. RHawthornes edit summary was quite clear.) I placed a note on William's talk page explaining my action. I repeat-- I did explain my action and that RfD was the pace to go. That post was removed and a snarky comment about signing posts was placed on my talk page. No one seems to have noticed that or the ensuing exchange. William had by then retagged again. Since he was not amenable to discussion, I brought it here in hopes that someone could communicate better. Thanks. Dlohcierekim 15:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you did rollback as vandalism, please do not claim otherwise. Also, I tried to engage with you [12] but you left an unsigned comment on my page that explained nothing and gave the impression that you were completely unaware of the situation.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

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

This is the latest IP of a banned user whose entire M.O. is to disrupt the Charles Whitman article and specifically material related to Houston McCoy. There's been a report sitting on AIV for a couple of hours without action, and in the meantime they have a large number of edits past their final warning. Any chance someone can enact a block on them? — Gavia immer (talk) 09:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, as a side note, there are three older unaddressed reports on AIV as well, though they are probably stale now. — Gavia immer (talk) 09:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Gavia immer did not notify me of this posting as noted in the rule. Also, as a contributor, I made a "Good Faith" edit to the Charles Whitman article, sourced it, added a direct quote from the article by the LA Times (a known reliable source), several days ago.

Today it got reverted for vandalism by a user unknown at the time of this writing, it is in the history. After reviewing the the claim of the original revertor, I reviewed WP policies and felt the revertor was mistaken and reverted the article back to include the good faith contribution, with an edit summary. BUZUK and GAVIA IMMER both started reverting the contribution with bad faith claims of vandalism, that is untrue, then accusations of sock-puppets appeared, that is not true, and now they are sourcing Jimbo Wales as a reason to revert over some issue with another contributor in the past, which brings to Gavia Immer's claims here.

I have asked an admin on another board to look at the contribution, determine the verfifability, sources and content of the contribution and nothing has happened except an edit war with falsehoods all over the map. Neither Gavia Immer nor BUZUK have been cordial let alone civil or assummed good faith, after I have asked them to review the contrib and prove it wrong. If anyone should be banned here it is Gavia Immer and Buzuk for tag teaming on an edit war that has no merit or basis for reversion. I will not even go into the false allegations at this time. Thanks for your attention, and please review the contrib as it was intended, in "good faith"! 98.94.164.237 (talk) 09:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I will admit to having overlooked notifying the user. Can someone block them now? — Gavia immer (talk) 09:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

article is over 3rr now for all parties involved, Gavia I'd like to side with you, this looks highly disruptive but the IP is using edit summaries and I've seen something similar with Beyond my ken, it got him blocked for edit warring, this board needs more eyes--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I know something about the background on this. Longtime banned user, blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

thanks Gwen, mark as resolved or are Gavia and Bzuk in hot water as well? I'd like to think the IP was the one misbehaving here--Lerdthenerd (talk) 10:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The edits of a banned (not blocked) user are revertable on sight, and doing so is an exception to the 3RR rule. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, only the IP (banned user) ever breached 3rr. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok so resolved then--Lerdthenerd (talk) 10:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I have asked for indefinite semi-protection. We'll see if they agree to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

They've set it for a month. Maybe that will help fend off the unwashed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)