Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive673

(Copy of WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#persistent_Francis_Fox_Piven_blanking_and_legal_threat needing prompt attention)
Please see Frances Fox Piven (history and comments) as well as User talk:Rostz regarding a legal threat from User:Fannielou. Please advise, thanks. Rostz (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I received a similar legal threat from FannieLou, who is past 6RR with blanking the page. She should be blocked immediately.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Fannielou is now blocked by MuZemike, who got there seconds before I did to do the same. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I would have gotten that earlier, but I accidentally blocked Rostz instead. My sincere apologies to Rostz for that. –MuZemike 22:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as the content dispute is concerned, she may have a viable complaint. I have already directed Fannielou to OTRS. She was retracted her legal threat on her talk page, but in the event of her unblock (which I won't oppose) I think it might not hurt to full-protect Frances Fox Piven for a few days to allow discussion on the talk page (or via OTRS if she chooses) to occur. Thoughts? –MuZemike 23:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It is a very crappy situation (person is an innocuous academic from what I can tell, getting death threats due to a harassment campaign, partly about an article she wrote 45 years ago in a drastically different social climate than today). Per "do no harm" please do protect the article or do whatever else it takes to prevent it from worsening her problems. I personally would support an AfD in rather strong terms, but I'm almost certainly in a minority about that. Cloward–Piven strategy appears to be a poorly sourced neologism that should also be deleted. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

One thought that no one seems to have brought up, does Fannielou want her email address included in her posts? It appears several places. JanetteDoe (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's the thing after briefly looking at it (and I agree, this is a very crappy situation). We got this recent incident as documented from The Guardian here, which, in layman terms, Piven is basically in some sort of a shouting war with Glenn Beck (surprise, surprise). We can keep the "criticism" section at

Just to clarify with my above comment: once something like this hits The Guardian, The New York Times, or any other widely reputable international source (that's the important part, the

WP:RS part), then suppressing said information from Wikipedia is not going to do too much more good. –MuZemike

00:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ick. What an all-round unpleasant situation. I've nominated this article for deletion, not so much because I'm sure it should be deleted or stubbed, but because I feel like consensus is needed, and I'm leaning in the direction of deletion- I'm not sure that Piven meets

WP:ACADEMIC, and I'm not sure that she should be considered notable just because Glenn Beck decided to give her notoriety. Maybe you feel differently, and that's okay. I have a lot of mixed feelings. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs

) 23:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Criteria 5 of

WP:ACADEMIC: appointment as a "Distinguished Professor". Publisher's blurb[3] states, "Frances Fox Piven is Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Sociology at The Graduate Center, CUNY". Glrx (talk

) 00:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

As the AFD is now underway (and discussion regarding deletion should go there instead), what about the unblock request on Fannielou's page, given that it looks like she has retracted the legal threat. My concern is that she will go right back to trying to blank the Piven article, which is why I recommended above that we should possibly full-protect the article in the meantime; at the very least let discussion about the content itself go on Talk:Frances Fox Piven. –MuZemike 00:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and semi-protected the article; the last thing we need right now is someone who doesn't know better adding stuff in there that can cause further damage. –MuZemike 02:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I hope its OK if I weigh in here, as I have edited both Frances Fox Piven and Cloward Piven Strategy and was one of the editors to revert the blanking of the former earlier today. As someone who sympathizes with Frances Fox Piven and has taken a look at the overall situation, I believe the following: 1. She is a notable academic and columnist on her own, not just because of the attack by Glenn Beck. 2. Though my original reaction was that "Cloward Piven Strategy" was a recent conservative neologism, a Google book search discloses a 1975 book in which she and Dr. Cloward used the phrase and other significant use by liberals and others after the original 1966 essay appeared. While I respect the need to respond to a legal threat and our attention to BLP issues regarding Dr. Piven, the right solution is not to delete the two articles, both of which deal with notable matters and belong in this encyclopedia. Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the phrase "Cloward-Piven strategy" in that Google Books link. I do see the link shows that the word "strategy" occurs in a book written by Cloward and Piven, but that is not the same thing. I think to have a standalone article about the phrase, you need some reasonable academic sources focusing on the concept. Otherwise it should get at most a brief mention in some other article. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• I note that currently the material on the controversy is not in the article. I've given my opinion on the talk p. there, that this is the opposite of protection of living subjects--we do not protect here by making it obvious to everyone likely to read the article that we are censoring the content. My opinion of GB is something below what I am capable of expressing in writing, but we best protect his victims by preserving the principles of free expression that he is so outrageously misusing. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I still support deleting the Piven biography (which isn't going to happen), but given that it's staying, the GB conflict should be briefly mentioned in it. Since the conflict mostly derives from Beck's notability rather than Piven's, though, any lengthier discussion of it should go in Beck's biography instead of Piven's (which can cross-reference it). 71.141.88.54 (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that there is a big COI problem here with folks on the board at the Open Source Initiative. They're pretty closely connected and editing each others' articles in tandem.

Perhaps other readers might find it interesting that Toddst1, in his hurry to accuse others of misbehavior, has failed to noticed that neither Danese nor Simon have ever edited the article about me. I've edited the article about Simon exactly once, to announce that he had moved from observer status to being on the board, AND I included a citation in the edit notice, feeling that three words didn't justify an inline citation. He was accurate to say that Simon and I have edited Danese's article.

That said, I believe that

WP:COI

is highly overweighted. Frankly, if anybody asked me if they should edit wikipedia using their own name, because of the activities like Mrs. Toddst1's, I would say "never ever". If you edit anonymously, you will never be accused of COI. I happen to be an honest person, and have nothing to hide, so I edit using my own name. Perhaps, given her accusations, I should be editing under a pseudonym like Mrs. Toddst1's. She will NEVER be accused of a COI because nobody can know what her interests are. ... I believe that Wikipedia is not helped by the activities of anonymous editors. Why be anonymous unless you have something to hide? And yeah, girlie, I'm lookin' at you.

The problem is made worse for people who are notable. If someone anonymous or not notable wants to get picky with the article about you, and goes on a deleting spree, as have Damiens.rf (repeatedly deleting citations) and Toddst1 (diffs), any reverting of the article about you looks bad. Thus, if there is a conflict on other articles, it can easily spill over into the article about you, and as a notable person editing under your own name, you have no recourse. This is not a good thing and provides a strong incentive to edit anonymously. --RussNelson (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I stepped in because I watch the article, and this kind of drama is driving away editors who are participating in good faith. Are some of the editors people who know Danese in real life? Yes. Do they they think it needs to be whitewashed and have no notices about the fact that there are problems in the article? Clearly not. No one disagrees that the bio is kind of crappy and needs way better sourcing. But freaking out and pointing fingers at people who clearly are here to collaborate in good faith does nothing to improve a poor BLP. To say that me or people who know Danese are strictly forbidden from participating and using talk page templates to initiate some kind of witch hunt is ridiculous when everyone is completely and intentionally transparent. I don't have a lot of time to waste on this today, but this overly aggressive stance and assumptions of bad faith are only working to push away editors who care about improving the article. Steven Walling 19:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of intentions on either side, if there are editors editing an article that they have a close affiliation with and, thus, a COI, it must be pointed out on the talk page with the usual template which I notice has indeed been removed. Silverseren^C 20:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that the template is only for the subject of the article. Is that wrong? It seems like the list would be crazy long (potentially everyone at the Foundation?) otherwise. (Yep, you were right Silver.) Anyway, I don't really much care about whether the template is there or not, so long as we can be a little more cordial about the whole affair. The OSI-connected editors involved clearly aren't here to own the article or push other editors around, and I think we need to assume some good faith here. Steven Walling 20:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the folks at the foundation should live up to the standards set by the community and avoid editing articles about each other. Those rules should apply to foundation employees as well. Toddst1 (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Reactions like this are why we need to tone down the hostility. This isn't a battle front to be defended against all outsiders, it's an open community for a reason, and the OSI folks have the right frame of mind in participating. Steven Walling 21:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Would these folks be considered "notable" if they weren't connected with wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing what the big deal is here, are members of churches banned from editing articles about people in the same denomination? No, even though they theoretically could have a conflict of interest. Rather, it is people with some level of connection with the subject, either negative or positive, that have an interest in improving and expanding articles. Why should that be driven away?

O

_{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 21:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

(ecx4) I'm not seeing how the WMF staff and the OSI folks are failing to follow community standards. The vast majority of our articles are written by, and maintained by, people who have an interest in the subject. Provided they are following the

five pillars, there is no conflict of interest. There is also the fact that, when it comes to personal beliefs, we come down hard when the beliefs of a subject cannot be directly attributed to a statement by the subject; the subject's statement outweighs whatever others say. So I am at a loss as to why Cooper's own statement about her beliefs is considered unreliable, when that is what we would hope to see from other subjects. (And yes, Baseball Bugs, the CTO of one of the top-5 internet sites would be notable enough for a biography; Cooper had one years before she joined the WMF.) Risker (talk

) 21:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That's just it, they weren't following the 5 pillars, putting in unsourced information, and when sources were used, most were primary. Look at the mess at Russ Nelson. Toddst1 (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you may be confused about "primary sources" and when they are appropriate. The official website of an organization is a reliable source for the membership of its board of directors, even if it is a primary source. A person's blog, where they state their philosophical beliefs, is a reliable source for the person's beliefs, even if it is a primary source. Primary sources must be used with care, but are specifically not excluded from use of sourcing. Perhaps the "mess" over a

G10 at the moment, and I'll go speedy it if there's not some resolution. Risker (talk

) 21:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I will put on my website that I graduated Magna Cum Laude from Santa's Reindeer Academy. Then I will write an article about myself which cites that primary source. I am, afterall, a reindeer and I have a primary source to prove it! Toddst1 (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I've consulted the Santa's Reindeer Academy's website, and not only do they not list you as a Magna Cum Laude graduate, not only do they not list you as a graduate in any year, they only list you as a freshman in the class of 2001, but suspiciously you disappear after that. I can only conclude that you are IN FACT not a graduate at all, but instead you flunked out. And if we can't believe the SRA as a primary source, we certainly shouldn't believe anything published about the SRA. And frankly, I'm underwhelmed by your contributions to Wikipedia. You delete a lot, but what have you created? I don't believe that deletionists can count their activities as improving Wikipedia. --RussNelson (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, Toddst1, I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to prove here, although I suspect

your essay probably explains a lot of the frustrating editing situations you've encountered. However, I think you're being a bit unreasonable to suggest that someone's own words are an unreliable source for their philosophical beliefs (after all, even if they occur in another source, the words will still have come from the subject); or that an organization is an unreliable source for the names of those sitting on its Board. Where do you think the secondary sources get this information? Risker (talk

) 22:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That's one of the most insightful and on-target

talk

) 22:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone else amused that Toddst1 wrote an essay that says "If you think an admin is on to you, quickly accuse him/her of being involved and/or having a bias and report them immediately ANI. You should probably throw in a few uncivil comments to give the air of authenticity to your actions", and then is here doing exactly that? :) AlexandraJackson (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not bad for your 11th edit (only 9 were not having to do with Danese). Toddst1 (talk) 01:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:AGF You're continuing to do the things you decry. Please stop. --RussNelson (talk

) 03:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Be careful, don't rile A-Jacks. She's stronger than dirt.[4] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the article, I have to agree with Baseball Bugs, is she even notable to start with?

O

_{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 21:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Wow Todd, way to go with the hostility on that talk page. Why not calm down a little and stop being so unpleasant? Why can't we verify someone's religious affiliation with their own blog? "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities". See
  WP:BITE. Fences&Windows
  21:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russ Nelson. The subject had removed content and prodded it, but this appeared to be more frustration than an actual desire for the bio to be deleted. Fences&Windows 22:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    • As a completely uninvolved party, I have made an edit to the article to diminish the negative emphasis, and I would regard anyone restoring it as being in direct violation of the obvious principles of BLP. DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
      • This is a good example of why we need an edict prohibiting BLPs on marginally notable people. (Yes, I've said this before, and I'll keep on saying it.)
        talk
        ) 01:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear admins/non-admins,

I have a question and want to ask it here: As far as I am aware, iPod Nano is a copyrighted trademark, right? So if a user name has such username, doesn't it violate the

You'd be hard-pushed to argue that it's strictly speaking illegal (incidentally, it's not copyrighted, just trademarked, but it hardly matters). Whether it violates policy, of course, is another question. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 21:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

There are actually several users whose ID's start with "Ipodnano". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that the usual answer to this is, "it doesn't matter". We can have user names like "Firefox lover" or "ToyotaCorollaDriver" or "Rock band player". I think this is because the user is not actually infringing on the trademark because they are not offering the same product. I think that if a user named "iPod Nano" offered himself as a portable music player, then that would be infringing on Apple's rights. I found this on a Harvard cyberlaw site: "The standard is "likelihood of confusion." To be more specific, the use of a trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes infringement if it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods or as to the sponsorship or approval of such goods. In deciding whether consumers are likely to be confused, the courts will typically look to a number of factors, including: (1) the strength of the mark; (2) the proximity of the goods; (3) the similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) the similarity of marketing channels used; (6) the degree of caution exercised by the typical purchaser; (7) the defendant's intent."^[5] /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The more likely potential problem is POV-pushing. I don't see how the name, by itself, would be much of an issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Per this, it doesn't appear to be a problem. If you feel it is, consider asking for input over at

) 03:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible threat

Resolved

 – Police and WMF notified Kudos to User:NeutralHomer

I noticed in this diff of Oxford Valley Mall, 24.127.142.216 (talk · contribs) made a possible threat to bomb the vacant Boscov's store at the mall. I just felt I needed to report this because I am not sure whether this is an actual threat or not and am also unsure if any precautions need to be taken. Dough4872 00:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure whether not not this is serious, but it is concerning as a possible

talk

) 00:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

WhoIs traces this back to Monroe Township, NJ. Their Police Department's number is 732-521-0222. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you think the mall needs to be notified of the incident? Dough4872 00:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I would, definitely and I would also notify the PA State Police, Troop M, which serves Bucks County at 610-861-2026. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It might help to call the Middletown Township Police Department at 215-949-1000, which is the local police for where the mall is located. In addition, the main phone number for the mall is 215-752-0845. Which number would probably be best to call? In addition, it may help for someone with more experience on reporting Wikipedia incidents to police to call. Dough4872 00:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

When is the IP going to be blocked, before or after he gets arrested? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Good question. For safety's sake, it may help to block now. Dough4872 01:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I would just go with the PA State Police and let them handle it the way down. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone here up to calling the state police. Personally, I feel a little uncomfortable calling the cops as I have never dealt with such a situation. Dough4872 01:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

In addition, should the bad edit be deleted? Dough4872 01:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Has anyone called any police departments in association with this? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Not from what I know of, I would prefer if an administrator with experience do the task. Dough4872 01:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Called the Langhorne, PA police department. They didn't seem real concerned. They seemed more concerned on who I was. But hopefully they get someone out to give the place a good once-over. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Cool, thanks for calling the police. Hopefully everything goes fine. Dough4872 01:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Monitoring. I am also emailing Legal for their assistance. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Anyone know how to get ahold of the new general counsel, Geoffrey Brigham? Mike Godwin is out (as of October 2010), so I have no one to contact at WMF. Left a message at WMF's legal department, so I will let them handle it in the morning. In the meantime, we've done all we can folks, the rest is up to people above our paygrade. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
            • You did email- "[email protected]" didnt you? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
              • I was not aware of that email address....emailing now. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• AFAIK Geoff doesn't have an email yet; he's not an official employee till March, I think. The emergency address is best for death threats, bomb threats, suicide threats, etc. and it's monitored by other people as well (I think including Philippe, Swatjester, other WMF staff). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • For reference, the legal address I last knew of was legalwikimedia.org, and I think convention is that such edits shouldn't be RevDel'd because it would prevent law enforcement from looking at them. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Two or three times I have used it for similar situations some one has gotten back to me within 5 minutes. The shifts people must arrange.... The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone, we've got the email and information, we're on it. emergency@ is the best address to send this stuff to, it pings a number of us all at once. Christine, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

Could an admin please delete User:Tom Morris/userinfo.js? I've placed a db-userreq CSD template on there, but because it's JavaScript, it doesn't actually work. Thanks. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. I'm told that putting the tag on the associated talk page still categorizes the javascript page properly, for future reference. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Will try and remember that! —Tom Morris (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_41#Deletion_of_css_and_js_user_pages, the category should have been added. Did you wait for category lag to clear? Flatscan (talk) 05:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone have a look at the contributions by 98.85.17.156 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? It's pretty bad. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The worst of it is that the guy's IP-hopping. Unless a broad range-block could be applied, ignoring it might be the best option. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked one... Looks like MaterialScientist is watching them pretty closely.  7  02:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Coming after an admin is not exactly an intelligent move, given that the admin can pick them off like ducks (pardon the ironic metaphor) in a shooting gallery. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

And who teaches these kids such foul language? Is it Glee? Tsk tsk. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe they watch too much C-SPAN (ten years ago, that would have been an over-the-top joke...). --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 03:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I watched the video of Dee Snider in front of Congress on C-SPAN's website, and they (online) didn't censor out the name of Twisted Sister's fan club- the Sick Motherfucking Friends of Twisted Sister- when Dee said it. I'm only 20- I wish I'd been around for the 1980's. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Dee Snider? I was thinking of Dee Barnes. –MuZemike 04:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – IP re-blocked for 1 year, edits reverted. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This IP 99.26.208.157 (talk · contribs) is within 1 day of coming off a 6 month block for the same behavior. It has begun again. Apparently the user continuously adds the fact that Alvin and the Chipmunks covered a song to a song or album's article. None of these are referenced, and even if they are true, it remains questionable whether they're relevant. What's distressing though is that they've added over 100 of these over the last 5 hours.

More notable, this has happened within 1 day of the block expiring. It almost makes me wonder if this is some kind of automated script.

Of course they have made no response to any attempt to communicate, which was true in the past as well.

I did begin to roll back these edits, but reversed myself, deciding to bring it here first. Shadowjams (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I've also turned this in to

WP:AIV, to see who gets to it first. I recommend holding off on the rollbacks until the IP is put on ice again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots

→ 00:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What seems puzzling to me is that after looking through some of the edits by the ip, they seem to be adding true information and not vandalism. I don't know if I personally would have added these without a reliable source, but given the fact that none of the other information in the section appears to be sourced either, it seems that Shadowjams could have made better use of his/her time. I don't know what triggered this response by Shadowjams, but these edits are clearly not vandalism and seem to be good faith edits attached to a content dispute with shadowjams.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and this IP has accumulated over 7 months worth of blocks because of a single so-called "content dispute with Shadowjams". I find that hard to believe. ~~

talk

) 00:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the blocks were for adding this same information which if I interpret them correctly were not vandalism then and are still not vandalism. It troubles me to see that this ip account was blocked for what seems to me to be adding correct information in the past. The ip was warned for adding information to a section of an article that has other uncited information in it. Very Very puzzling.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I had no previous interaction with this user (that I know of). There's no content dispute that I'm aware of. Shadowjams (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The monitors of AIV wouldn't block the IP. The question at this point is, what are the rules, if any, about distributing a particular group's every song among the various song pages? What is notable about the Chipmunks vs. possibly many other "real" artists who may have covered a given song? Or does it matter? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Again I stress that this is most likely a content dispute and less likely that any admin will take action against an ip adding good faith edits, even across multiple pages.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What are the rules, if any, regarding spamming of one particular group's performances across every song article they can find? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I would hardly consider adding cover vesrions to songs to a section full of numerous uncited cover versions, spamming.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

So, in your personal opinion as an editor, are the edits OK as they are? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I would not have added them as they are, but I also would not have removed some of them and then start a thread at ANI, nor would I have reported the editor for vandalism, all of which has happened in the past hour. So much for the Assume Good Faith crowd.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

So someone should start a discussion on each of the many dozens of pages spammed by that user? A user who won't communicate with anyone? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Now we get to the heart of the argument, what to do. Well if I was Shadowjams and I wasn't happy with some particular edits made by an ip or any other user,I would first revert, Do Not Rollback, any edits with the comment that a reliable source was required. I would then begin a discussion at the ip's talk page. If the ip doesn't respond, but doesn't readd the information then the issue is settled, but if the ip readds the info, Do not get into an edit war with an ip, simply add a "Fact" tag to the information and see what may come of it. You may be surprised, you may actually get one. But we'll never know if we Do Not Assume Good Faith. If after a suitable amount of time has passed, then if no source is presented then I would have just removed it, but this information is hardly that dubious, easily confirmable, and does not appear to hurt the project one bit. Not enough to go through all of this trouble at ANI.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Fact tags are unnecessary. The information is easily verified. That's not the issue. The issue is the appropriateness of the added items. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If you and Shadowjams feel thatthe edits are innapropriate, then by all means go ahead and do whatever you seem fit, but its a content dispute and hardly a case for ANI,, nor a reason to ask for a 6 month block.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

A user refusing to talk IS a case for ANI, as it's about disruptive behavior. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well if not partaking in a discussion is disruptive then I guess we must all get 6 month blocks.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No, you and I normally respond when questioned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well you asked what I would do and I told you. What you do is of course up to you, as I have no stake in whether or not those refernces are in the articles or not and they're hardly worth edit warring over, or losing any sleep about, since as you said, the information is "easily verified".--Jojhutton (talk) 02:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

From what I can tell from the available history, it is the addition of information of dubious value across dozens of pages that initiated concerns, and it's the failure to respond, while continuing to do so that led to the blocks. It looks like that's happened 3 times now. What I don't think Jojhutton is appreciating is how there is no communication going on here, only more insertions of the same material. That is disruptive. Shadowjams (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Since the admins won't block the guy, the admin-related question at this point is, should we start doing mass-rollbacks? Or is someone going to yelp about that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to wait on that question until we get more editors' input. In some cases this stuff could be relevant, in other articles it seems entirely trivial.

It's the continual additions that need to stop until at least some discussion with the user begins. A discussion on the content boards about this will have no effect if the user won't even communicate at this stage.

I certainly wouldn't have started this thread if it was a first time occurrence, but it's the ongoing nature of this that troubles me. Shadowjams (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm waiting for joj to explain how we're supposed to start a hundred talk page discussions, with a user who won't talk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: edits have restarted after a brief lull. Maybe some new voices on this topic could be helpful. Shadowjams (talk) 02:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The blocking admin (now retired) clearly stated "The block is for six months. If you return after that time and continue on your spree, the block will be for a minimum of one year."[6] Six months to the day, there's another "spree". It's apparently a problem, and point #4 of the

consensus building. Doc talk

02:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

So you want to block an ip for adding information that any one of us would have been given Good Faith to add.If I or any other logged in user with a clean record made these edits, it would never have come down to a block. Seems more likely that we should review the previous blocks and see if there aws any real justification for them at all. Other than the failure to communicate, I see no real threat to wikipedia at all. Not enough to block for.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

So you want us to start over a hundred talk page discussions, with a user who won't talk? What could that possibly accomplish? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not really what I was trying to imply, but I agree discussion is preferable, but unless there is clear vandalism or an edit war going on, I don't see any esaon to block. I could be wrong, but I haven't seen anything that would make me change my mind. If you don't like the edits, simply revert them.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You're advocating edit-warring as a solution??? Have you looked at that IP user's talk page, and observed the frequent and futile attempts to communicate? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe that I expressly said In Bold, Do Not Edit War. Was that not read correctly? Are you not assuming Good Faith toward me and accusing me of advocating a breach in policy. Please read

WP:BRD. I understand that the ip will not communicate, but as the edits appear to not be vandalism and has not, as far as I know, reverted the previous reversions, I would assume that there is no blockable offense that I can find.--Jojhutton (talk

) 02:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

So, should we revert all of them? Or just a few, as a test? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, you do what ever your concious demands, I have no stake in the information at all. I just hated to see Good Faith edits treated as vandalism and even reported at AIV as being so.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The guy was repeatedly warned, suspended for 6 months, and continues unabated and refuses to respond. How does that qualify as "good faith" editing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Continues doing what exactly? What is it about the added information that you felt constituted vandalism?--Jojhutton (talk) 03:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the comments by various other users on the IP's talk page? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't concern me as much as what makes these edits vandalism to you?--Jojhutton (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

← Errr, it just started again... with no discussion... -- Luk ^talk 14:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

comment - just block him again asap - repeat of previous behavior and failure to move to discussion.

Off2riorob (talk

) 14:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I liked "vomment" better. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

ah, you spotted it, never a truer word said in jest..or something along those lines \-)

Off2riorob (talk

) 15:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

He should be blocked for another 6 and his changes should be reverted as trivia/listcruft/spamming/whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Coming to the issue via AIV, I blocked the IP for a whole year as an escalation. If anyone thinks this is too drastic, I won't object to a reduction. More controversially (in view of this discussion which I didn't see until it was a bit late) I have bulk-reverted their latest wave of edits. I cannot tell which are legit, but when they so stubbornly refuse to explain or discuss, I see no other option. Favonian (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree, a single purpose of spamming a cartoon band to the lede of all sorts of articles that starts up again like some kind of bot after a six month restriction and refuses to discuss needs a mentor or something if they want an unblock.

Off2riorob (talk

) 15:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The chipmunk has now been confined to his tree for the next year. In the interim, someone(s) will need to look at each of the hundred-plus articles and figure out whether each specific entry has any merit or whether it should be zapped. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Favonian - bulk reverted them, which sounds like a handy addition to a monobook.

Off2riorob (talk

) 16:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Just the last round - there are still lots of them. I'm going to remove the one for my beloved

Doors as "non-notable", and if there are objections they can be discussed on the talk page. What a novel idea! Doc talk

16:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. Reverting a bunch of acorns in "one swell foop", as it were. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well Good job troops. Pat yourselves on the back. You just blocked an editor for adding true and verifiable information to articles. I thought that we were trying to encourage people to contribute to wikipedia, not block them for it.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not everything true and verifiable is of encyclopedic relevance. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

We've blocked a disruptive possibly non-human spammer for six months. I see no problem with that. Rklawton (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well at least I know that I'll sleep with a clear conscious tonight, because I advocated for what I felt was right.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

While we did not agree on approach, no one questions your good faith in the matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I just notified the original closer and admin who reclosed this debate of this discussion.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

A non-admin user with a Christian icon closed the move debate for

Thanks for the notification, DeCausa. As I already told this user,

WP:NPA is painstakingly clear about "using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views," so the attack on Alpha Quadrant would have been inappropriate even if we had known that zie opposed abortion, rather than being "Christian," which could mean Episcopalian, pro-choice Catholic, or any number of other things. I hope, DeCausa, that "reporting" yourself here is indicative of a desire to improve your behavior rather than to see it justified, because what you said is so way out of line. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs

) 01:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I believe it is absilutely justified and I am happy to be blocked for this, if that is the decision. It's a basic principle of Natural justice that the decision maker is not seen to be one-sided. I repeat, this is not about the religion of the user, it's about the overt display of icons directly relevant to the issue in debate. The comment about "using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views," is absolutely fine and I support in the context of general editing. In making a decision such as this, it is not fine. And one other aspect, there's possibly a difference between displaying these sort of icons in a US context and in an international context. In the UK (where I'm from) it is a an agressive stance. DeCausa (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

And, as I say, I'm happy to be blocked if that is the decision. On the other hand, I ask for a decision on whether Roscelese's 'final warning' was unjustified (so I can say in the deletion edit summary that that was the determination, if indeed that is the case.) DeCausa (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What is this thread (or the one below) going to accomplish other than to continue to raise the temperature? If you want to remove the comment from your talk page, remove it. Roscelese is not an admin and has no ability to block you, nor is any admin going to consider the warning (or a lack thereof) in deciding whether to block you. Warning templates (other than pro forma templates like deletion notifications) are primarily geared towards new users and templating regular users is considered rude. --B (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

DeCausa was not "using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" at all, but simply to question the wisdom of their non-admin closure - I see no criticism of anybody's *views* in any of those messages. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

He's trying to discredit the closure not based on the rationale or the reading of the consensus, but on the fact that the one doing it has a particular box on their user page. That's an inappropriate ad hominem if I've ever heard one. At any rate the whole thing should be resolved now that an admin has closed the discussion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a person closing a discussion who has an "icon" on their page proclaiming themselves to be X, so long as they do so based upon the merits of the discussion and have not been involved in the discussion themselves (or other related discussions.) Using one's self-identification is not grounds for dismissing their views, which is what you are doing here, in that I have to agree with Roscoe. A person coming in quoting the Bible and has through his/her words/deeds shown an inability to remain objective is a different story, but somebody who has a user box/icon/etc---no. (going based solely on what I see in this discussion and attached links) IMO, it does not paint you in the best of light---makes you look paranoid about other peoples ability to maintain objectivity. I've closed discussions and been invited to mediate discussion related to politics despite having a user box declaring my personal political stance. That being said, unless there is more than what has been posted here, I do not see your actions rising to a blockable offense nor do I necessarily see them as a personal attack. But that is based upon what you yourself have provided (I don't know if there is a pattern of your discrediting the views of others based upon self-identification or not). On controversial subjects, non-admins should definitely refrain from closing the discussion---so I support the admin reversal of the closure.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that sounds like a pretty fair and balanced view of things to me. I see no bad faith on either side here - neither in Alpha Quadrant's non-admin close nor in DeCausa's objection to it. With a contentious issue like this, I just think that closing should not have been attempted by any non-admin or by any editor (admin or not) who might look to be in any way involved or biased (even if no bias is actually employed in the decision). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That was EXACTLY my point - probably put more succinctly than I did. (Cuchullain: Of course I wasn't trying to discredit the closure - I had no need to as it had already been reversed.) DeCausa (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

DeCausa, you can make legitimate concern about a user being a non-admin closing such a controversial subject. If applicable, you could even make a legitimate concern about a user who has shown a history of being unable to separate their personal views and objectivity. When you come in and declare that somebody, simply for having an "Icon" on their page is unfit to make a close, that is a different story. You made a broad statement stereotype. I have a Republican "Icon" on my user page, but that didn't stop people on the "Tea Party Movement" from asking me to mediate a discussion about the Tea Party shortly before the elections. They asked me because both sides of the issue believed that I could remain objective on the subject. Declaring oneself to be of a particular political party/religion/sexual orientation/etc does not, by default, make one incapable of remaining objective. Also, being a Christian <> Pro-Life. There are Christians out there who are pro-choice (my Cousin was one of his states' Planned Parenthood Board of Directors for 8 years and is a minister.) Was AQ's original close within the parameters of the discussion? Yes. Was it well rationed/reasoned? Yes. Did it accurately represent the views presented? Yes. Had the original closer been involved in the discussion? No. Had the original closer ever contributed to the article? Looking at the last 4 years on the talk page and 2 years on the actual article, the answer is no. Based on the discussion, could it have been closed any other way? No, there clearly was not consensus to close as a move. My guess is that prior to this close you had never heard of AlphaQuadrant. You're only grounds for objecting are "an Icon" and the fact that he isn't an admin. The later might be a legit concern on highly controversial subject, but the former (lacking any other evidence) is not.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I made my points on this in the Pro-life Talk Page. The reason I came here was in relation to Roscelese's reaction, specifically the templating for saying what I said. I have not made a complaint about AlphaQuadrant to this noticeboard. Earlier you said "I do not see your actions rising to a blockable offense nor do I necessarily see them as a personal attack". I took that to mean Roscelese's templating was incorrect (although you said that assumes I've disclosed all the relevant posts - which actually I have). Given all of that, I'm not sure where you are going with this and what more there is to add. Is this just a debate on my original point of view? If so, I'm not sure this is now the right forum? Or have you changed your mind that I haven't committed a blockabled offence? Could you clarify please. Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

While I certainly agree that one's personal opinions on things should not be generalized from one's expressed religious and/or political affiliations, I still think it is unwise to take closure/admin actions on topics in which people of one's expressed allegiance are often seen to have a strong point of view, and I do think it is valid to be concerned when someone does that. For example, if I had a userbox proclaiming myself as a Floobian, I would specifically recuse myself from closure decisions on any topic in which Floobians in general appeared to have an interest. I think it comes with the territory really - by all means publicly identify yourself with a group/cause/belief/etc (and I respect people who are open about such things), but if you do then I think you should avoid making "management" decisions in areas in which people who share that identity are strongly active. And finally, yes, I agree that the warnings given to DeCausa were wrong - there were no personal attacks and no bad faith by anyone here (including Roscelese, who I think was also acting in good faith). Would it perhaps be a good idea for everyone to accept that everyone else was acting in good faith and move on now? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I do think Roscoe's warning was out of place, I think some people throw NPA too casually. So in that light, no I would not support a block or action on your statements. (I completely agree with Boing, I think everybody here is activing in good faith.)

But making a generalized statement about a single user box, without ANY proof that said user box affects his/her edits, is not justified and IMO reflects poorly on you. The same issue comes up occassionally at RfA, but usually with people who identify themselves as Athiest! In both cases, having a user box that identifies a belief, does not by default, disqualify one from measuring consensus among the community. Especially, when said user box is so generic and vague that it coulf fit a quarter of the worlds population. The concern comes in when a user starts editing in a manner in which their personal beliefs override their ability to be objective. Which was not shown. Not only was it not shown, but no evidence exists to support that notion, except for their "icon." In fact, looking at the editors contributions belies your concerns. The editor has no history on the Pro-Life page. The close, while non-admin, was not against consensus. The editor in question has a history of working on closes and based upon his talk page seems to have the respect of those he works with. I doubt he even gave the fact that he has an "icon" on his page a second thought related to this discussion.

I'd rather have a person who shows sound judgment being open with where they stand, than to have somebody with no user boxes showing unsound judgment. Boing! you make an argument about Floobian, but that is a little off the mark. I'd rather point to something more generic, where DeCausa lives---the UK. Now, it is entirely possible that a discussion might arise between two groups of people who live in the UK about an issue related to the UK. As a dumb American, I might not have the knowledge to properly parse the discussion and understand what is relevant. In order to close the discussion, you just might need to get somebody who is from the UK to understand the nuiances of the discussion. Hell, if the issue involves one of the soccer teams then it might be beneficial to have somebody from the soccer project get involved. ;-) Having a user box, whether Athiest/Christian/Republican/Torry/American/Brit/Manchester United/etc does not disqualify one from using their knowledge/expertise to properly understand a discussion. One's edit history, not user boxes, should be the basis for criticism/concerns. AQs close, was perfectly legit, although he probably should have let an Admin do so because of the subject involved.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. Thanks for your responses and time. DeCausa (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Yep, you (Balloonman) make a lot of fair points, and I'm largely in agreement with you. I just find myself erring on the side of caution from both directions. So I'd be happy myself with decisions made by people who show good judgment (as AQ indeed did), regardless of their userboxes, but at the same time I would not effect judgments myself if there was any possibility of conflict with a userbox I used, if for no other reason than that it might raise suspicions in others. So I think it is wise to avoid doing closure stuff in such situations, and also wise to take great care when thinking of disputing such actions.

PS: I just looked up "Floobian" - I thought I'd made up the word and had no idea it really existed.

PPS: I'm from the UK - and you should never trust anyone who displays a "Manchester United" userbox ;-)

Cheers -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I had to look it up too... and when I did, I thought you were making a little commentary on the subject or Pro-Life. A lot of pro-lifers are anti-Floobians ;-)

I just think before we start impugning the motives of others, we should do more than a cursory check of the user page. When I came to this thread, I expected to find a case wherein a user had ventured outside of the lines to close a discussion in a manner that was a clear example of bias. Or a user who had an extensive history on the page and then claimed neutrality. Instead, I found a rationale close that accurately reflected consensus.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, yes, it's quite amusing that not only does "Floobian" really exist, but it actually has some relevance to the pro-life debate. I'll be more careful in future when I try to make up words, and I'll go for something that can't possibly be real - "Raelian" sounds good . But seriously, yes, I think we're pretty closely aligned in our thoughts here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• - Clearly the move debate was a very complicated discussion and needed an experienced closure, which has now happened, and as the thread below -
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 17:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – ...maybe. Account indeffed, IP blocked for a month. Report any

N419BH

20:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive672#Disruptive_Behavior_by_User:_Mad_Doggin_7_.2F_65.254.165.214

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive672#User_Impersonation_-_Mad_Doggin_7_Making_False_Claims_Using_my_Signatures.2FClaiming_to_be_Moderator

Since then, within the last few hours, he has continued to persist in making these disruptive edits, once again ignoring all evidence against his claims and failing/refusing to provide any sources (as he has done on at least 16 separate occasions over the past several months), and defying community concensus and multiple warnings. He is likely emboldened by the lack of administrator action despite overwhelming evidence and explicit reports of his multiple and serious infractions.

I strongly urge immediate administrator action this time to prevent further disruption to this article and and to other Wikipedia users. He has shown consistently over his history that he has no intention of ever heeding any evidence or warnings, and will continue to post his gross misinformation while refusing to provide sources or evidence, and is willing to go to extreme ends to persist, including threatening other users, lying about administrator privileges, and explicit impersonation. CannikinX (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well - having been repeatedly asked for sources, claimed an apparently non-existent source, impersonated another editor to falsly back it up and threatened everybody if they continued to argue - he is now merely re-adding his unsourced additions. Why does Wikipedia need an editor like this? I would propose an indef. block - unless there are serious signs of understanding the nature of what he has done. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the timely response Fainites. I agree that an indefinite block is in order as (if 65.254.165.214 is indeed the same person as seems likely) he has shown in the past that despite multiple (4) temporary blocks, he has no intention of stopping his disruptive behavior, but rather continues upon expiry of the blocks. CannikinX (talk) 10:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

We'll see what he has to say. Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I've provided a warning regarding unsourced content, but we're now getting into severe

N419BH

13:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes to the IDHT. I know he was only warned for falsifying sources and "support" for those sources but it does seem at the moment that basic integrity and a basic willingness to edit in accordance with the principles is missing. This is beyond the usual over-enthusiasitc POV pusher. I proposed an indef. until such time as he can demonstrate an understanding of basic principles. It would help if he would come and discuss this here though.Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Just now, a little over an hour ago, he has once again reverted the page, using his alternate IP 65.254.165.214. See the following diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Black_Rock_Shooter_characters&diff=414076540&oldid=413962874. There is no doubt that this is the same person, as this address has exactly the same behavior and pushes exactly the same edits (it is also the address which I mentioned had been blocked 4 times previously for similar behavior; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3A65.254.165.214). CannikinX (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Indef blocked account for disruption. Blocked IP for a month. Hopefully he'll just go away. Rklawton (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for settling this, Rklawton, hopefully for good. I seriously cannot fathom what is going on inside his head. He just kept digging his hole deeper and deeper with every act. I will keep a close eye on his IP activity once the 1 month block period expires. Given his past history, repeat offenses are a distinct possibility. CannikinX (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Admin renamed and re-protected article, as per consensus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2010-2011_Pro-democracy_protests#I_asked_for_immediate_911_on_protection

I don't see what you want? If its a revert issue report at the

Off2riorob (talk

) 21:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

We're ping-ponging between different names to describe the global/middle east/greater middle east/arab world protests. Discussing it on talk. Move Protection may be helpful, but it's not desperately needed. Ocaasi (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No a move protect should be put in place this is out of hand and a clear consensus should form before a page is moved that at least 3 editors disagree on in only minnutes of it being moved. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The page that for the past few weeks has been called

2010–2011 Arab world protests

was moved yesterday without consensus and reverted after rapid talk-page opposition to the move:

• [7] (original move without any obvious consensus)
• [8] (revert to Arab world protests)
• [9] (revert to en dash in 2010–2011)

During the last (half hour or so?) it has been moved several times:

• [10]
• [11]
• [12]
• [13]
• [14]

IMHO this needs a revert to the previous stable name prior to the move [15] by User:FromEast at 17:39 13 February 2011 (UTC), i.e. the name in [16] (17:39, 13 February 2011 Ser Amantio di Nicolao) and a block against further moves pending a standard move proposal. There are enough users involved in working on the page so that there is a good chance that a consensus decision following a standard page move proposal would be a good and stable decision.

Boud (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What, if anything, do the sources call this series of protests? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I was the originator of the article. So far all I have seen is "Arab world protests". There are protests in Iran right now (which is not Arab world), but that stems from earlier protests there and on the whole unrelated to the protest movements inspired by Tunisia. Jmj713 (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Do the sources connect the dots to cover other continents' protests, or is that "global" conclusion a bit of "original synthesis"? One could lump the "tea party" stuff into it, to really stretch it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes they do. There are numerous citations for that in the lead, plus several external links to that section at the bottom of the article. They specifically state "Arab world" (or variation thereof). Thus far I haven't seen a single source that lumps every ongoing protest into these, like those in Europe, etc. Jmj713 (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems like Stubing is trying to get "his version" protected before someone moves it to something else. There's no apparent consensus yet, and it's strictly a content issue at this point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Baseball Bugs' view on this. Per Boud, the page should be moved to the status quo ante, i.e. to

2010–2011 Arab world protests. I've left a warning at the editor's talk page.  Cs32en Talk to me

  21:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It certainly is his attempt and thus hard to AGF. He has claimed consensus, but here

Talk:2010-2011_Pro-democracy_protests#Page_move

(unaninmous vs. him) the consensus is opposite

let me just say the view im keeping as status qup consensus is NOT my view. i voted against that move.

this is the most flagrant case of

WP:BOOMERANG ive seen--Lihaas (talk

) 21:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I've seen more flagrant cases, but this one may be in the running. Looking at the user's history, I'm not so sure it's bad faith, but maybe just that the user is a bit exciteable. That doesn't make his actions valid, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the original title is Iran, which is where the protest started last year and are returning right now. If we have an Arab-only name, then we can't put the template for the protests at the Iran article, and it just gets too restrictive. We're looking for a broader name, but not too broad. Ocaasi (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Like I stated above, the protests in Iran right now are a continuation of earlier protests, and there is an article for that. For the article in question, it began in Tunisia, and subsequently people in other Arab states were inspired, as in Egypt, etc. Jmj713 (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Why do so many here use the word "concur" instead of the rather more straightforward and easier to type "agree"? Is it in a mis-guided attempt to appear educated?

Fatuorum

21:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Duh, yup, dat's right. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know that there is such a difference in style between "agree" and "concur". What I wanted to say is that, in my view, Baseball Bugs got it right.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Even us blind squirrels find an acorn sometimes. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I acquiesce. GiantSnowman 21:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey dudes, I simply am requesting that the MOST accurate title be used. I do not feel this is unreasonable. If someone can explain how protests on four continents are "Middle East" I will agree.

What sources connect all of these protests together as a single movement? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

And also your view alone doesnt constitute the "MOST ACCURATE" thats what consensus is for

please also note his THREE reverts ont he move without ANY consenss is the strongest indicate for a block [17] and the last 3 section of his talk page+ [18] + [19]

User_talk:Merrill_Stubing--Lihaas (talk

) 21:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The title "2010-2011 Pro-democracy protests" has now been protected for 7 days. This is rewarding a move that was made against consensus, by an editor who apparently does not care about consensus. This page protection measure needs to be reviewed.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It didn't help that another editor got into a move edit war, despite being advised not to do so due to the lack of consensus. There should be NO MORE MOVES until consensus can be reached. There is no rush on this matter. Finalize consensus, and then ask an admin to do the move, and maybe continue to keep it move-protected after that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

please see the page. EVERY single editor has disagreed with the moe of the 1 unilateral mover.

Also please note the latest incarnation of consensus (which irnoically is moving back to waht i supported)

Talk:2010–2011_Pro-democracy_protests#Article_name--Lihaas (talk

) 23:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I would agree if the page would be move protected for 1 or 2 days. But, in my view, we cannot have a POV-based title that is not based on reliable sources on a high-visibility page for a week.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Surely consensus can be reached before then. It looked like there was good progress being made, but one editor just couldn't stand the fact the article had the "wrong" title, and edit-warred over it. That has to stop. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, the page is linked to from the Main page. It's a shame to have what was a great article and a highly visible one, devolve into what it has. Take a look at the state it was in just yesterday, before someone decided everything in the world has to be interconnected. Jmj713 (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Should the page as well as the title be reverted to some point yesterday? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like someone just has. Jmj713 (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep. And I think "formal" consensus on the title is also at hand. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The admin has now renamed the article to

2010–2011 Arab world protests, and re-protected it also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots

→ 00:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – zot. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Waterfall117 (talk · contribs) came to my attention do to a set of edits to Shattered Angels.[20] Looking at the editor history since 2007. Every edit has been either disruptive and in most cases, outright vandalism. This editor has not show any signs of constructively contributed since making this edit[[21]] 3 1/2 years ago. —Farix (t | c) 00:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The best policy is to just revert-warn-report after the final warning.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That's the thing. This editor has a pattern of vandalizing until they get that last warning, laying low for a few months, then picking back up. They are effectively

playing a game with the system so as to avoid a block. —Farix (t | c

) 00:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, he certainly managed to last a long time. Blocked indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – No chance in hell account is going to be blocked. –MuZemike 04:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

arb · rfc · lta · rfcu · ssp · SPI · cuwiki

)

IZAK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)

The above user is in flagrant violation of Wikipedia:Username policy#Internet addresses. It's been noted and he has been warned about it many times, see:

1. User talk:[email protected]/Archive 2#Inappropriate username (what are the "magical powers" here that "User:Durova has corrected my incorrect assumption re your username, as you said s/he would. My apologies for hassling you. Happy wikying. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 19:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)" -- can other editors also apply for exemptions from WP policies?);
2. User talk:[email protected]/Archive 7#Your username; how does "getting grandfathered in" work on WP, there should at least be an essay about this: "This has been addressed about a million times already. Rms is grandfathered in. -Rrius (talk) 09:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)" -- can other users get "grandfathered in" if they are still using hundreds of older rules to edit by?
3. User talk:[email protected]#REGARDING MY USERNAME (what kind of "excuse" is "Robert is one of the few editors who is not obliged to change his username, as his account was created many years before the rules were changed - Alison ❤ 02:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)" -- could such "excuses" be made when old-time users try to rely on older more lax rules of WP editing for example?)

This would nominally be a case for

Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention but the situation has deteriorated as there are more serious ramifications because the above user, while feeling self-satisfied that he may carry on in violation of current WP policies, sees fit to "impose" WP policies as he is now doing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaim Rabinowitz, see in particular "Off-topic attack on the nominator's choice of username elided" and my attempt to point out this contradictory situation that has been reverted multiple times. An involved admin User David Eppstein (talk · contribs) has tried to intervene on the above user's behalf, however, it is utterly absurd, inconsistent and ridiculous that one lone user should have the right do as he pleases in violation of WP policies, while he feels free to enforce WP editorial policies in regard to articles. This situation cannot be allowed to continue. It's one thing if the above user keeps to himself and edits quietly, but it is quite another matter if he abrogates for himself the right to start AfDs and "impose" policies when he does not live by them himself. Any serious Wikipedian would have changed his user name by name and avoided any appearance of conflict, but this user. Outside admin intervention is requested. IZAK (talk

) 04:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Will inform involved parties. IZAK (talk) 04:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Both the above user and the involved admin have been informed. IZAK (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• You know, personally, I'd look at that and go "Well, this has been talked out before, and it's obvious that it's not changing, so why bring it up again?"--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this a real problem or a vendetta about you AFD discussion? If it's the first talk to him first. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 04:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? What "vendetta" I have never come across this user before as far as I know so I have nothing against him. But when any user nominates an article that interests me for deletion then I try to see where that user is coming from, I take a look at his user page and talk page and I get a sense of him, his general reasoning, and his motives. In this case, what quickly became very clear was that here's a guy who thinks there is one set of rules for him and another set of rules for all other Wikipedians. By what "right" does he come along and nominate articles for deletion which are at root ONLY POLICY discussions and decisions that APPLY TO EVERYONE yet for himself declares with HIS USER NAME YET, that HE IS NOT SUBJECT TO WP POLICIES? That is what got me so curious and concerned and that is why I ask for more serious intervention. It's one thing if he merrily edits along in places and does not cause mischief, BUT it is quite another matter if he puts on the mantel of a "WP policy wonk" and "WP policeman" to delete articles that are pretty serious in many editors eyes. So it's not about "vendettas" but it IS about consistency of all the WP policies without any exceptions. Otherwise please let me know where the "exceptions" section to rules and policies FOR EVERYONE is to be found on WP? Thanks for asking, IZAK (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• (
  WP:UAA and indeed at one point, I was by far the most active admin at UAA, so I know the score - Alison ^❤
  04:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Alison, why do you call him "Robert" where does it say that is his name if he does not use it. Why can't he use "Robert__" as his user name? You are advocating for him. IZAK (talk) 05:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Let's end this one now please. I'm amazed this would still be brought up after so many years. Who cares? Wknight94 ^talk 04:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • No. This user is in the process of implementing WP policy when he is in violation of WP policy. Don't be so superficial please, it's a serious matter. Can you tell us which policies we can ignore please now that one guy is allowed to ignore a WP policy so out in the open? Thanks, IZAK (talk)
    • He is not in violation of the username policy. See this version, for example; "E-mail addresses or web page addresses are generally considered likely to be promotional. Note that for a long time, email addresses were not prohibited. Usernames created before January 1, 2007 that are email addresses are grandfathered under this policy and are not prohibited." ... and so on. Soon as the policy is changed so that editors with capital "K"s in their name are outlawed, you'll be the first on the chopping block ;) (Trivialising? It is trivial!) - Alison ^❤ 05:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Alison: It is incredible the lengths you are going to defend this violation based on OLD versions of things. Who cares what it said then? I can tell you that when I started on WP about 8 years ago it said lots of things that today would be laughable. Anhow, FYI, here is TODAY's WP policy in case you have not read it yet: "
        WP:LAWYERing that is causing you to shoot yourself in the foot. Thanks, IZAK (talk
        ) 05:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Point of note, and an aside, admins are not 'obliged' to 'enforce' anything on WP, as we're all volunteers just like any other editor. As for his name, he's used his RL name on here for many years now, given he's been here since around 2004 - same as we have. I'm seven years on here under this account (tomorrow, actually!) and I've seen policies change too. However, what I'm seeing right now seems to be driven by spite, quite frankly, as he's been editing for years under that name and given it's no longer an issue for Mediawiki, why should it be an issue for you? And why, for that matter, have you forumshopped this over to
          WP:COIN? - Alison ^❤
          06:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Alison I was not going to respond because an admin has closed this discussion, but you still inserted your last comment all the same, and are creating a false impression. The only reason I continued this discussion at COI is precisely because discussion was cut of here and for the wrong reason. At no time was I looking for a "block" for the user in question. My request was that he not get involved in "implementing" policy decisions as in AfDs when something as basic as his own user name is in violation of Wikipedia:Username policy#Internet addresses: "E-mail addresses and URLs are not valid usernames" (no mention of it not applying to some, or being rejected by Mediawiki or some such excuse by you) for which he has an exemption that no-one but he and you seem to know about that is bound to create questions and you see that they happen even though you dismiss them so lightly. I am trying to move on from this, so please stop making fun of the issue in defense of this problematic user. Thanks a lot. IZAK (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
            • • His username is irrelevant. The end. 115.64.182.73 (talk) 10:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • That's a good question. Why do you care IZAK? NW (Talk) 04:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I am trying to figure out when confronted with the implications of policies in AfDs why a user can be exempted from policies being applying to him when such efforts would be laughed out of court if they were tried by anyone else except this user. Can you let me that first? Thanks, IZAK (talk) 04:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
      • • According to the admin comments here, he's exempted because the policy says he is. As far as the "Robert" part, he made that fact known in one of his early edits. I don't think that using one's e-mail address as one's ID is a very smart thing to do, but "it's his funeral", as the saying goes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
          • What does "because the policy says he is" mean? You are confusing what admins say with what policy is. Admins say many things, they are obliged to follow policy like all users. Policy is arrived at by its own means and once it's accepted it applies to all users. I am trying to move on from this discussion now. IZAK (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
      • This isn't a courtroom. If his username doesn't cause any problems, then we have no problems with it. Prodego ^talk 05:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
        • This is not the only editor with "grandfather rights". Therefore, I've made an addition to
          WP:U. The few users who have exemptions by consensus of the community have probably been discussed before, and thus there should be a record somewhere that consensus exists for their username to be allowed. It may be that there are still a few editors whose cases have not been discussed. Such cases can be discussed if and when they are raised. Mjroots (talk
          ) 09:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
          • What, are we being sensible now? How is something like an accurate description of current practice supposed to help people yell past each other for hours on end? — Gavia immer (talk) 09:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
            • I'm sure there's pleny of other stuff to yell past each other over. Mjroots (talk) 09:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Despite the user's incredibly over-the-top overreaction to another user's ID, technically he has a point. I have asked Alison this question, and I'll ask it here also: Why was the "grandfather" clause referenced earlier in this section removed from the writeup over 3 years ago?[22] It makes it seem that the current policy has no exceptions at all. Shouldn't that "grandfather clause" be re-added to the policy? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Bugs is right here. If RMS's username is indeed grandfathered, then the policy should explicitly state a clause about grandfathered usernames. However, this seems like shopping for sanctions to eliminate an opponent in an AfD about a Talmudic scholar of questionable notability. 75.150.53.81 (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

One of our more frequently repeated (and occasionally heeded) mantra is that our policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. We could describe the policy better to avoid misunderstandings. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

POST SCRIPT - I understand that the issue is closed but I was offwiki until a little while ago, and was debating whether or not as the subject of this matter I should respond. Therefore I am leaving this brief message just to underscore a few points. I have been on Wikipedia since 2005 -- not 2004, as Alison noted but I understand why, it feels like forever sometimes -- and when I created this username, I probably was not fully aware of the all the ramifications of using your email address as your username, but I don't think I have had any problems because of it. This is the username I was directed to maintain per ArbCom (my unbanning agreement) so I have. I do not understand why it should be of concern to anyone, but in light of the behavior exhibited towards me by IZAK I am sure it will be understood that I therefore, consequently, could not consider any change of username, although obviously I would have to abide by any justified directive (i.e. requirement) to do so by an unbiased, disinterested third party. I would like to thank everyone for judging this case on the merits, not on my past as has been done in the past, by those seeking a weapon to discredit me. [email protected] (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Mjroots and some other editors have contributed to a new section in the user name guide called "Exceptions",[23] which is intended to cover cases like yours. Hopefully, that will settle this matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we just block IZAK and be done with this? He is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and is waa-waa'ing over his precious article being send for deletion. 140.247.141.136 (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

How about we block you instead for being a sock? GiantSnowman 23:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

An IP comes back to life after being dormant for 5 years and 4 months? Might that be a record? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Stupid question

Why has IZAK not been blocked for Personal attacks and disruptive editing? I am Looking some of the stuff at AFD and he seems to have clearly violating

WP:CIVILITY crossed here, here [24] not to mention forum shopping here. Why are we tolerating this outlandish behavior? The Resident Anthropologist (talk

) 6:10 pm, Today (UTC−5)

That's a good question. I would chalk it up to a large level of tolerance on the part of the admin that he was yelling at. As I said, he did have a point, technically; and that point has been resolved. But it all seems to have been a smokescreen for disagreement on the deletion of an article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Stupid question is not stupid. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Either one of these acts of outrageous behavior would seem more than enough deserving of a block IMHO The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi there ResidentAnthropologist: You are not being helpful because the thread was marked by an admin as "Resolved" meaning it's over. There was an AfD, it's still on the go and you are free to participate in it instead. In the AfD I raised a matter of procedure, simply put, if an editor/nominator is in violation of a basic WP policy relating to his user ID how could he then have any credibility/right in imposing/implementing WP policy in an AfD? The admins have chosen to reject this question. That is their choice. I have moved on, but you seem to have trouble letting go. You are now moving into violating

WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, while I am trying to pursue the road of peace. Peace is always better than war. Thanks, IZAK (talk

) 01:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I think you behavior is incredibly ridiculous for out of proportion to the content dispute. How is questioning your actions WP:BATTLEGROUND? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You know ResidentAnthropologist you should see what is really happening and quit trying to make me into your scapegoat. I need to be thanked (not "spanked") for raising this issue -- (there is no "painless surgery" sometimes) for pointing out a huge misconception in WP policy procedures. Within 24 hours of this thread being "Resolved" and while you look for reasons to undermine my good work, on the other hand it has already: (a) started a healthy debate about the problems with having any exceptions to WP policies, and (b) admins have obviously seen the merits and logic of what I have to say by making some very serious changes to the WP user name policy change, see [25]; [26]; [27]; [28] -- and no doubt there will still be more until this matter is resolved. I may be overly passionate the way I express myself, but the logic and sense of my arguments are solid, so much so that the admins now feel obliged to "fill the gaps" I pointed out -- had I not raised the issue it would not have happened. For the record, I still maintain that it is wrong and counter-productive to have "exceptions" to WP policies especially when attempting in AfDs that are all based on WP policy presentations by the nominator and voting users. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The validity of a user's name has nothing to do with that user's opinion on an RFD. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi there Baseball Bugs: I am merely pointing out, and you have agreed with my point above, that my argument was valid, and that there should have been a specific mention of "exceptions", and now the admins have made those changes. Regardless of how we got here, but there was a problem and I picked up on it. Not everyone sees things the same way. The user in question was not merely giving an "opinion" he was seeking to implement WP policy by nominating an article for deletion based on WP policies while he had himself a user name that was against known WP policy, but now, funny, how within 24 hours, you saw the merit of my points, and also within 24 hours, four admins scrambled to insert a new "Exceptions" clause that had it been there in the first place (and it may yet be disputed and have to go) this entire conundrum would not have arisen. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Even if his user ID was "HitlersLovechild", he would still have the right to participate in deletion discussions. The one has nothing to do with the other. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

So we're now getting down to Reductio ad Hitlerum are we? I will not respond to that. Adios. IZAK (talk) 03:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it has nothing to do with that, either. Different example: If his user ID was "I Will Kill Anyone Who Disagrees With Me", he would still have the right to participate in deletion discussions. The one rule has nothing to do with the other. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. IZAK (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

OK IZAK, I am going to stop you right there. You will not be thanked for bringing up this issue and throwing personal attacks and everything around at everyone who disagreed with you, them being admins. You raised an issue that has been discussed before, was found to be a "grandfathered" name, consensus was found for that and everyone moved on. You are one man shouting at the crowd that is walking away. You don't have consensus, you don't have the policy on your side, and you don't have any admins saying you are correct (or any editors for that matter). It's over,

WP:STICK is in effect. Move on. - Neutralhomer • Talk

• 02:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh and do stop forum shopping, will ya? That's in violation of

WP:ADMINSHOP. - Neutralhomer • Talk

• 02:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• • Hi Neutral: I am not looking for any thanks. I am not forum shopping. And I stopped the discussion, but someone raised some points against me, so I responded. That's all. As far as I am concerned, it's over. Admins need to thrash out how to phrase, change, and create exceptions to policy. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    • The issue is not whether the name was within policy or whether that was legitimate concern the method you went about doing it is completely absurd. Your behvior in the XFD was absurd combined with COIN thread to discredit the nomination is absurd. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
      • As Alison mentioned on Rms125's talk page, you brought this up at
        WP:WQA, and now here. That is forum shopping. - Neutralhomer • Talk
        • 03:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
        • WP:WQA? I missed those... I did even know there was a crat board! This is what needs addressing The Resident Anthropologist (talk
          ) 03:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Hey there Neutral and Resident: Neither of you read her right, she was being rhetorical and cracking a joke, I raises the matter only at the AFD in question, then here at ANI and only then at COI after the matter was suddenly closed here for the wrong reasons, I was not seeking a block but a remedy. Please apologize for alleging that I went to "
            WP:AGF against me by mis-reading and grasping at any straws in your vendetta against me, please stop it, it does not become you. Thanks, IZAK (talk
            ) 03:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
            • Accusing those who question your actions of having a "vendetta" amounts to a personal attack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
              • Hmm, and if they accuse me of doing things I never did, that is far worse, it's just a plain lie, and they should apologize, or they just can't read English, which is their problem not mine. Stop it will you, what is the point, how far do you want this to go? IZAK (talk) 03:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
                • How far do you want it to go? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
                  • See: Wikipedia:WikiLove. IZAK (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Alison didn't say that, and IZAK didn't do that. Alison asked a hypothetical/exasperated "what's next" question. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• I'll bite. this complaint is bullshit. if IZAK keeps it up I'll block him. Is that clear enough? Protonk (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Just so we're crystal clear on this point: Let's suppose a user has an ID that could be considered a violation of the rules. Is there any rule that prohibits that editor from editing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• I know 2 or 3 editors here (on both sides of this issue) in passing, and they happen to be on opposite sides here. That said, this certainly smells to me -- as I expect it will to some of the other more seasoned editors -- like a dispute that has its roots elsewhere, and where some comments might differ if different editors were the subject of the complaint and its reaction. That said, I agree with BB's comment up top that "he did have a point, technically". From what I've seen, this is an odd result. The "technical point" he had is that his reading of the rule was accurate. That seems to have put out some on the other side of the issue. Who have I understand changed the rule, turning it on its head. To be a society of rules we need rules that are clear, open, and followed. Something is amiss here, from what I've seen -- though admittedly, the conversation of the issue appears to have taken place in different corners of wp (or perhaps off wp), so I can't even see where the basis is for the sense of the community having been taken, and found to support such a dramatic change. If someone can point me to it, I would be much obliged. We should not have rules changed 180 by one or a select few editors -- such changes, especially when there are differing views, are appropriate to make only after there is an opportunity for the community to consider the change. With that as background, I find the "let's bring to task the editor who pointed out that the king has no clothes" approach to be ... perhaps ... somewhat misplaced. As a final note, I do agree that if a user name is not permitted, but the user is still allowed to edit, that has no bearing on his right to comment at AfDs, as BB has also pointed out.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • No, they are free to edit until such time as blocked because of either the username issue or any issues directly related to their editing. IZAK's raising of the username issue was valid, even if the reasons behind raising the issue were not. As this editor is restricted to using this user name
    WP:ARBCOM. As such, this thread is now closed. No further purpose can be served by keeping it open. Mjroots (talk
    ) 06:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.