Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive710

• This touchy-feely stuff cannot possibly be for real. Is this story from The Onion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • As offensive as templating regulars? Place your esteem tokens in my one armed bandit of random reactions to inappropriate, unwarranted and unesteemed praise. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Ewww. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a nifty and adorable idea. When do we deploy Wikihate? Or Wikimeh, for those situations when it's difficult to work out whether someone's being a jackass or a saint? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a time and a place for features that don't really add to the experience. I guess this is the Facebooking of Wikipedia. Having to edit raw text in a window like this instead of a realtime, rich editor? How's that a great experience? Its sad to see when Internet companies get sidetracked trying to compete on style when a lot of times substance is the real desire. Look at all the horrible Myspace pages there were. Not much style there, but it filled a niche that people wanted. Easy editing of a web-based presence. -- Avanu (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikimeh. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

So, this is one of those idiotic nifty new features the developers have come up with, that we have to choose to go opt out of instead of choosing to opt into? And, how much will this slow down and screw up the servers like happened a few months ago when we were all automatically enrolled in the "email me when someone posts on my talk" feature. Makes me contemplate a month long wikibreak just to avoid that hassle again.Heiro 03:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

When will the Wikihate button be rolled out?

 Hate  Here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Praising other's edits by clicking on a button and dropping a template is indeed about as deep as clicking "like" on Facebook--a hollow act producing a formulaic compliment (even if they can be tweaked whimsically) that requires no investment and is therefore meaningless. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Personal interaction does a lot to get people into things. The experiences of working with Mila on a waterdrop photo, RexxS on a table, FS on an image mod, or Counting Crows fellow on footnotes were very positive and led to more interaction. Mostly to my benefit, but they've had fun too. I think that bright orange bar does more than anything else to draw people into working together. But you have to have a personalized message with like thoughts and stuff afterwards. I mean, I'm a newbie so I still like barnies and all (don't stop) and I never got a welcome plate of cookies. But, honest, the interaction with shmartiepants people like Wehwalt and Malleus is more exciting than some random love icon.

P.s. Of course this could be a total "doh" moment if the Wikilove thing is not what I think it is, but I'm worried, it will be lame.)

P.s.s. I claim priority on having the first friending system here at Wiki.

TCO (talk) 04:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• I've test driven the system; it's fun. It's not a random love icon, but rather a tool to simplify users placing barnstars or friendly graphic-laden notes on the talk pages of other users when they choose to do so. There are preloaded image options or you can substitute your own. People who are not the type to attract cookies to begin with are probably not likely to see much difference with the tool, unless their friends enjoy tweaking their noses. :) Deep interaction? Not inherently, no, but likely to be pleasing to some and harmless if taken in moderation. :D (Just the thing, Drmies, for decorating a nursery.) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  We have editors that need a simpler tool to be able to place barnstars on another contributors page...? Perhaps it is best, then, that we distract them from the content pages with these frivolities. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  I think you forgot to harumph. :D --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Wow. A well intentioned idea that somehow manages to be implemented in a way that is inappropriate, unsettling, unattractive, juvenile, condescending and counterproductive all at the same time. Is this a first for Wikipedia ? And when does the 2011 Fundraising Appeal start ? Gandalf61 (talk) 12:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Goodness, why not (speaking to the grumpy ones here)? Our most widely used automated tools are for slapping new users with 6 levels of warnings for about 25 possible violations of Wikipedia policies. A tool that's used for expressing appreciation? Gasp! zOMG! Could this be a threat to the Grumpy Old Boy's Club on Wikipedia? Probably not, but one can hope.... First Light (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm more irritated by the fact that every time they roll out one of these myspacey/facebookie things, they default include everyone. I would not have even known about this if not for this thread, as I don't usually follow the developers or village pump. As I mentioned above, the last time they rolled out a new function like this, it caused serious server lag for almost a month, made it difficult to edit, and caused a lot of scratched heads as the vast majority of us did not know what was going on. I suspect the same thing will start happening again in a few days. Ands speaking of the Old Boys club, does anyone know if this is supposed to be one of the new ways of attracting more female editors?Heiro 15:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Does this mean Esperanaza is coming back? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Discussion like this was probably good inspiration for this essay. --causa sui (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is intended to have us shove barnstars or other stuff down others throats (especially if they didn't deserve it). I mean, I know I can do a better job myself in showing recognition to those editors who do the right things. Perhaps I'm just saying to give it a chance and see what results from it. I really don't see how this can hurt the editorship of the encyclopedia or likewise move us any closer to re-establishing Esperanza (as one pointed out above, and also where "WikiLove" originally came from). –MuZemike 18:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Quick, better check "exclude me from feature experiments" in your preferences. If it actually does anything. MER-C 02:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The WikiLove deployment will respect that user preference, i.e., if it is checked, you will have to opt-in to use WikiLove.--

*

18:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't Twinkle-style automation of things like barnstars defeat the point a little bit? A barnstar is as close to a pat on the back as one can get on the Internet, and this feels a bit like an automated back-patter. That one has to manually edit the page and paste the code is part of its charm. However, I can see some merit in the other wikilove templates, especially having a consolidated list of WikiBooze templates (which I suppose would be handy if you're WikiDrunk!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• I thought I was the cynical one. Adding some positive stuff to talk pages is something to be worried about? Wow. The foundation realizes that it needs to adapt to stay relevant. I disagree with the foundation on many things but this isn't one of them. If anyone else here actually took the survey (wasn't it only like 5k or did I read it wrong?) you would see that the goal is to make radical changes. They will end up ticking most editors off and a fuzzy kitten or a tasty looking beer are the actual good things. But if you really want to fix the problem: get rid of templates to address the BITE issue. If you think that sounds ridiculous you should hear my idea to get more female editors. Cptnono (talk) 09:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

So what is your idea for attracting female editors? Pure curiosity. Anna^talk 03:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment)Shouldn't this be at the community portal or the administrator noticeboard, this is for incidents. Well, its deployed. I would like to be able to opt-out though. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 23:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

  I consider the deployment an incident. You can opt out of "showing WikiLove" (i.e. display of the obnoxious heart symbol) by unchecking the box under My preferences -> Editing -> Labs features. If you want to make it clear that you don't want to become the victim of "WikiLove" you can use my userbox, for example (see below), but there is no way to really prevent it. Hans Adler 23:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Great April Fools' Day contribution, only 3 months late

Wow. This is a great April Fools Day joke, but why couldn't you wait another 9 months? Making it easier to leave impersonal, semi-automated messages with intimate/sexual overtones. And there is a setting for not using this option, but no setting for preventing to be WikiRaped that way. And of course the selling point is that supposedly it will make Wikipedia a more welcoming kindergarten brothel collaborative encyclopedia. Hans Adler 21:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, it's a very versatile "tool" that can even be used for autoeroticism.

On a more serious note, I can understand why strategic attempts at improving our communication habits are not discussed widely before experimental implementation, but if you want to prepare such things sneakily you really need to think things through to make up for the lack of community vetting. Hans Adler 21:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Some other reactions above look as if there might be more general interest in my new userbox {{User:Hans Adler/No WikiRape}} {{User:Hans Adler/No WikiLove}}. Hans Adler 22:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC) [edited after rename]

While I may be being a humourless curmudgeon here, I'd like to see the word "rape" thrown around a bit less casually, please. -

Aaron Brenneman (talk

) 00:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point. In my defence, I couldn't help reading some of the recently leaked Arbcom emails, and as a result wasn't merely pissed that the childish "barnstar" rubbish is getting official status now – but this "WikiLove" stuff also reminded me of the behaviour of the creepy predator/stalker who features in one of those threads. Hans Adler 06:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Any chance of moving it to a title less likely to cause offense, then? You know you'll be asked to do it eventually, so better sooner than later for the sake of dramavoidance. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Hans Adler 10:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I wonder how often we'll see "make WikiLove, not edit war" on

WP:AN3. -- Atama頭

16:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's nice to check in and see that Wikipedia has decided to answer the question of whether it's an MMPORG or a social networking site in the affirmative... to both. Should do wonders for attracting and retaining teenagers and adolescents, the lifeblood of the enterprise.

talk

) 01:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

As there seems to be a little resistance to this tool can we run this thourgh the RFC to gain community consensus on whether to deploy this tool or not? Clearly any fairly major interface changes need to be approved by the editing community at large before deployment - especially if controversial. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

WMF is not likely to care about an RFC for a feature which hasn't even been deployed yet. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 17:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Uh...go to a user talk page and look up there ↑ by the star for watching a page...it has been deployed. Tex (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

And for that, you get... a barnstar! It is quite a nifty little gadget and very easy to use. Carcharoth (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

TBH the only objection I have to it is the name is puke worthy and it is misrepresented as something to increase editor retention (which any seasoned vet knows comes nowhere near the issue). But it seems this is controversial - and I agree the current implementation (the heart and the terminology is "Facebook like"). --Errant ^(chat!) 22:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

In case you guys are interested, you may want to know that pretty much everything about the extension is configurable on-wiki (by editing MediaWiki:WikiLove.js). If en.wiki doesn't like Kittens, you can replace them with bags of coal or whatever. You can even change the heart icon to something different if you like. It's totally up to the consensus of the community as to how you actually want to use this tool. (You can also configure it personally in your vector.js or monobook.js.) Wouldn't it be more useful to start an RFC on what changes you want to make to WikiLove? Unlike most interface features, you don't actually have to ask the developers to implement any changes. Any admin can do it locally. The configuration documentation for the extension is somewhat minimal right now, but I will be expanding it significantly over the next few days. Just let me know if you have any questions about it in the meantime. This is supposed to be a tool for the community to own and use however they want. If you want to replace the Food and drinks with WikiProject invitation templates or whatever, that's fine with the Foundation. I think the only thing the Foundation would object to is replacing all the items with warning templates. Kaldari (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the entire idea is silly. It's very easy to annoy someone by templating them with a warning message. Making someone feel welcome by templating them is much harder to achieve. I, for example, feel offended when I get such silliness. If it comes from someone I haven't seen before, then I'd wonder if it's a sockpuppet trying to brown nose me or someone who genuinely feels thankful for something or other and seriously thinks it's appropriate to show this by templating rather than writing a personal message. If it comes from someone I know well it would be even worse.

This project is full of people who are semi-literate in the sense that they don't really like reading or writing more than a sentence or two, and prefer templating and reverting. By offering these silly new templates you are pushing things even further in that direction. I cannot believe that the kind of people who think it is socially acceptable to leave automated "kittens" and "barnstars" on other people's talk pages are more likely to contribute well-written text to the encyclopedia than those who don't want to be associated with this infantility. In fact I expect the opposite.

Whenever a bureaucracy makes up a target such as "make the editor community grow again" there is the danger that one then tries to optimise a single parameter without keeping the others in mind. I am not sure why we need growth in the first place as we are moving from construction of the encyclopedia towards maintenance mode. But if we do need growth, then we need growth by encyclopedia writers, not by naive social networkers who can be pleased with the push of a button. It's true that this project has too much negativity, but that cannot be balanced with feel-good superficiality. Hans Adler 23:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hans Adler is correct in most of his points, this seems geared to the social networking happy-talk crowd, when what we really need to attract are the writers, researchers, copyeditors and photographers of each oncoming generation, and, at the same time, to make things better for those who do those tasks now, so we don't lose them from burn-out and disinclination to participate any longer. Those kind of people aren't going to come here because of WikiLove, they're more likely to be repulsed by it.

Personally, I don't object to people expressing to me their appreciation in whatever form it comes, but a sincere "Thank you" is just as good, and appreciated just as much. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. Template the experts with kittens often enough and they will probably leave. —Kusma (t·c) 08:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hans is correct. A couple of years of kittening each other will change the community from here to write the encyclopedia to here to socialize, and discussions about issues will resolved on the basis of I like it. What editors need is a light-weight mechanism that stops unhelpful behavior before the people concerned learn bad habits, not cute decorations. Johnuniq (talk) 10:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I find the assumption that the next generation of "writers, researchers, copyeditors and photographers" will be put off by occasional kitten images amusing, given that the majority of the such people that I've encountered may even devote a

whole day of their blogging to kitten pictures. (Of course, none of these people edit Wikipedia and often cite the unfriendly environment of crabby, entrenched editors as the reason.) The next generation—and I'm talking about the recently degreed, not the recently toilet trained—are social networkers. If you find this sort of thing unpleasant, you can put a message at the top of your talk page and tell any violators to get off your lawn. Danger (talk

) 10:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's social networking and then there's social networking. Certainly a generational change has occured which means that almost everyone will use social networking in the future, but there are those who live and die by it, and those who use it simply as a matter of course. There are already some number of people editing Wikipedia who appear to be here not to edit and improve the encyclopedia, but for whatever social interactions they can get out of it (limited though that may be), and we really don't need to encourage more to join, since what they contribute is essentially overhead and not content or logistical support. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that the people you refer to are going to be abandoning Facebook for Wikipedia based on the creation of the WikiLove extension. I mean, Facebook has Farmville, which is far more entertaining than a kitten template or two. :) It is a matter of encouraging established editors to stay. How many prolific editors have we lost in the past 6 months because they've felt that their contributions are not appreciated–or actively denigrated? Danger (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that retention of valuable editors is the more important problem to solve. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It might be a smidgen more useful if the "create your own" feature actually worked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The best reward I get on Wikipedia is when I'm told my work is appreciated. Just about every time that's happened, it's been with plain text and a custom message. When it takes actual thought and effort to thank me, that's when it counts. That's also why I always leave custom messages, even when I deploy barnstars. I've gone as far as to create custom stars and custom templates too (as anyone who voted at the FS main page proposal knows). Making "Thank you" into empty words is going to make Wikipedia worse, not better.

This is a stupid waste of space. Can someone post whatever javascript/css needs to go where to get rid of it at my usertalk? I'm using monobook. Thanks. -

Any chance of someone making an opt out for this ridiculous feature? I always thought Wikipedia was an encyclopedia, but I guess now it's Facebook. --B (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

How to disable WikiLove (it's in the editing prefs). Kaldari (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Ummmm, this may be kinda obvious - but if you don't like it, don't use it! And you could always have a message or something at the top of your user talk page to say "No Automated WikiLove, please!" Personally, I'm open to kind comments and so on, no matter how many keystrokes they require - provided that I've deserved them :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a terrible idea, and Hans Adler is absolutely right. We seriously do NOT want to do anything to encourage the idea that being a Wikipedian is about distributing barnstars and cookies and pictures of fluffy kittens so that you can make "friends" who will send them to you and you can add to your trophy page. It's something to be able to turn it off, but I would support an RFC on the idea of opting out of it for the whole site. JohnCD (talk) 11:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• I would certainly oppose any attempt to force others to opt out of it. Yes, this is social-networking-website-like. It's pretty far from ideal, but it's also a genuine attempt to make Wikipedia a less hostile, less contentious, and less fractious place to be. The intention is to foster a pleasant and collegial working environment.

  Naturally, there will be problems. One expects the various factions (pro-Israel, pro-Palestine, ARS, etc.) to start awarding each other barnstars in a kind of circle jerk, and to use them as victory celebrations when a counterfactional editor gets sanctioned or topic-banned. One expects that there will be editors who find excuses to be offended when offered a small token of respect. And it is silly and facebook-like. But, we need to increase the number of positive interactions between editors, or at least, find some way to reduce the number of interactions that are negative and hostile. Particularly for newer editors.—S Marshall T/C 22:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• This seems more appropriate as a gadget than a MediaWiki extension. If we convert this to a gadget we can get rid of the stupid name and heart and more importantly, make it opt-in rather than opt-out/forced down our throats. (I'm highly allergic to cats.) MER-C 03:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• I have to agree that it sounds like a pointless feature. I wish the devs would do some more useful stuff, like come up with a better "diff" that has a special color for moved but unaltered text (or at least doesn't misalign so often), or come up with a display for categories that looks as pretty and compact as the custom templates... Wnt (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

  As it is so pointless, I wonder whether any Foundation money was spent on it (if yes, it would indicate they have run out of useful things to do with it). Such a diff feature would be truly useful. —Kusma (t·c) 20:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The little pink heart was irritating me — beginning to symbolize all the things I dislike most on Wikipedia! — so I've switched it off. But surely the default for this kind of thing should be 'off' rather than 'on'? --Kleinzach 02:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• I see goal but it can be impossible to reach it using interface methods, I just received nice thanks (with barnstar) on my home wiki - without any kittenlove extensions (any action looking like result of wikilove script will be reverted on my talk page - as childish and irritating, I see nothing pleasant in scripted "Thanks, kitten!"). I think that it will be better to rather add LT (development stopped) and WYSIWYG editor (no development AFAIK) - better interface can really help Bulwersator (talk) 06:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I like it

Bunch of grinches you lot! For those of us not too hot on markup this is a great way of saying thanks, and it doesn't have to be impersonal at all - one can still put a good deal of thought into a message. The convenience is a good thing, really. Egg Centric 09:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

As do I. I appreciate when others compliment my work and contributions. Also, I have been trying to make a tool to create wikilove templates, {{Blank WikiLove}}. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion either way ... my only comment is that I would prefer to have the tab opt-in, rather than adding it by default and making it opt-out. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, I haven't used it at all--but it's certainly not worth complaining about, IMHO.

talk

) 04:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I like it too. Some change of pace from the usual venom on talk pages. FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this the right place to ask for semi-protection for 2011 Wimbledon Championships a couple of anons keep adding blatant commercial content. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Try

WP:RFPP. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk

) 22:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I will do that. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – All three miscreants blocked indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 10:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, apologies if this isn't in the right place, but from what I can see it's a combination of meat-puppetry and vandalism so brought it here...
This article,

As I remember from Pending Changes, your overly expansive interpretation of BLP seemed disruptive enough on its own. When you elevate BLP above normal editing policies and say we shouldn't cover what the media say about a topic, and propose this should be protected by a special censorship mechanism overseen by reviewers who have to share that POV or lose their right to review, that's a huge problem. And when I then see the same people involved in an RfC witch-hunt against Cirt incorporating bogus charges, leaked e-mails, Anonymous board forums by third parties, and blaming him for taking out a false statement about a living person or failing to incorporate a tabloid reference about another ... well, my ability to AGF really starts to dry out.

Now it is true that I don't see any obvious policy basis for Jehochman to have closed that RfC, though as I remarked at the (newest) ArbCom case, it may be time (as Raul654 suggested) to create one. If the allegations against Cirt had been winnowed down to the few that weren't completely unreasonable, we might have reached some closure, or at least, reduced the extremes of partisanship involved.

I also don't understand how you can add Jehochman as a party to the case. Isn't that ResidentAnthropologist's show? If every named party can bring in whoever they want there could be thousands of parties before they decide whether to take it. Wnt (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Pending changes was a tool and the discussion over its usage wasn't focused on BLP. I support Pending protection completely as a limited and useful addition to the toolbox. Alas its gone and I have left it long behind. I know you don't support

Off2riorob (talk

) 20:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Transformers: Dark of the Moon#Edit request from ThePurpleProtector, 20 May 2011

Starting from there, I only noticed it because the comment I was just having changed font and became red. Theres a message there but it isn't in the history log of the page so seems may be injected? Maybe its old but thought I would bring it to your attention Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It was in {{ESp}}, which might need protection. --Golbez (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah ok, its fixed on my end so that was definitely the source. Thanks for clearing it up Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I've protected the template as well (3255 transclusions). I'm not super-current on what we're doing with high-visibility templates, so if another admin wants to reverse my action, that's fine. TNXMan 20:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It probably should be pointed out that editing an unprotected template isn't really hacking anything, but here I'll defer to

WP:BEANS before going any further. elektrikSHOOS (talk

) 20:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

User misappropriating committed identity

Resolved

I'm involved in a content dispute with a new user:DerekMD on Richard Stengel. User has requested comment on that dispute. I only mention these facts because I'd like to say that's not why I'm here. The new user has recently created a user page, appropriating a nice image from User:Coren's user page to decorate it. Unfortunately the new user doesn't understand the page construction, because while some userboxes were removed, the administrator userbox was left in place. Clicking on the test link demonstrates the new account with less than 100 edits is not in fact an administrator. So I mentioned to the user this was inappropriate and have received no response or reaction. At the time I noticed the user had a committed identity, which I thought, heh, unusual for a newbie, but so what? So today I googled the listed identity and... it's User:Coren's. Since I'm involved in a dispute of sorts with the user, I can't just correct it myself. Could I get some fresh admin eyes on User:DerekMD's page? BusterD (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, however I've removed the administrator userbox and the false/misleading committed identity from the userpage. Claiming to be an administrator when you're not and using someone else's committed ID is disruptive. Night Ranger (talk) 01:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't want to do that myself under the circumstances. I've notified both named users. BusterD (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need to think this is anything more than a newbie that didn't notice how some bits of my userpage didn't apply; or didn't quite know how to remove them cleanly. — Coren ^(talk) 02:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Coren... not trying to impersonate anyone. I really like the reactor image. I guess it's OK for me to use it for now? since no one has said anything about that. If not just let me know. ThanksDerekMD (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Use it all you want. It's a freely licensed file from Wikimedia Commons; nothing to do with Coren personally. Bishonen | talk 23:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC).

Like Bishonen says, this is a freely licensed image and you are welcome to use it as well — it's certainly not mine. There is something eerily attractive about the blue glow of doom, though, isn't there?  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 00:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I request to be IP banned myself, so I don't have to put up with Sudoghost's harassment anymore. I tried to play nice, inviting the stalker the help me, but he is just fucking insane. Please IP ban me, so I am not tempted to edit Wikipedia anymore. Thigle (talk) 00:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

He's not harassing you as far as I've seen. I haven't been closely following your interactions, but as far as I have been, you've been the one at fault. Pay attention to the rules (copyright and otherwise) and give other users as a modicum of respect and you may magically find you have fewer problems with other users.

talk

) 00:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You were edit-warring at

WP:3RR, even after being warned that it would lead to a block. Since you've been blocked twice before for edit-warring, for 24 and 48 hours, I've blocked you for a week. -- Atama頭

00:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I have notified SG of this discussion.

talk

) 00:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

(

Boomerang strikes again! —GFOLEY FOUR!

— 00:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Case

The following discussion 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.

---

Resolved

 – Block evading IP is blocked again, won't take the hint.

The earlier part of this thread is now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive709#Daniel Case.

As I understand it the appeal hierarchy is

Administrators

Arbitration Committee

Community

Once the community gives its decision the case is closed because there is no higher court. So it can't be taken back to the Arbitration Committee. I note that you've been editing under another name, although there is no reference to that in your userspace. Are you aware of the rule that an involved administrator should not block but leave it to someone else to make the call? Please explain the relationship (if any) between the Mediation Cabal (which you are involved with) and the Arbitration Committee. Are you speaking in an official capacity or as a private citizen?

This is a matter of general interest, so it would be win - win all round if Errant simply answered the question.

To D Macks: You don't darn a sock by pushing the delete button. You get needle and thread and do something constructive. Why is it always administrators who choose the lazy option? Don't the silent majority get a chance to air their views on Wikipedia? 94.195.195.252 (talk) 10:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but as I'm a newbie could you spare a few moments to give me a simple explanation of how the system works (not too technical please, as most of the technical stuff I read in Wikipedia is way over my head). Thanks. 80.229.81.66 (talk) 20:48, 6 July 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.

Fastily and baiting

Resolved

 – No further administrative action required. No baiting here - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

Nice try at attempting to "bait" me, Fastily. His response to my latest request for rollback is an escalation from the declines of this previous rollback request, and this autoreviewed request. He had been

聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C)

20:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

What administrator intervention do you want from this board?

talk

) 21:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Some enforcement if he responds to me at a page beginning with WP:Requests for _ even once with the sort of colours he has shown to me. —HXL:

聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C)

21:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't blame Fastily responding as such when, in your rollback request, you refer to other users as idiots. No, I didn't read the diff, because it doesn't matter, your request was uncivil. N^oformation ^Talk 21:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear who HXL49 called an "idiot" if anybody; there's just a link to the history of the Taiwan article, which is often a target for IP vandals and trolls. On the other hand, administrators are held to a higher standard of decorum, and the fact that Fastily called HXL49 a "monkey" does raise some questions as to whether Fastily is baiting HXL49.

talk

) 21:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This lengthy diff contains the "idiot" remark, FYI:[8] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, hey, it's a humorous and light-hearted American figure of speech. Rest assured, no monkey business intended ;) -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The more typical version is "you can't an old dog new tricks". Whether that's better or worse than being called a monkey, I couldn't say. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't care if it's intended (really?) to be humourous and light-hearted. The connotations that it could possibly carry are what matters. I demand a retracting of the 'monkey' comment right this moment, and your lighter tone here is merely spraying salt on a wound. —HXL:

聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C)

21:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hah, well, okay. Feel free to glean unintended meanings from my words if it floats your boat :P -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

That you used 'monkey' instead of 'dog' should speak entirely for itself, you know. Not so much about the intent as the victim's reception of it. And I believe that is what's taught in (American) schools about bullying, is it? —HXL:

聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C)

22:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This is much the idea of "you get what you give"; because the idea of civility borders both ways. You pretty much left yourself open, not to abuse, but to a lessened standard of politeness, when you refer to another editor as paranoid. Perhaps take a page from Slakr's book - he did not demand you retract that. Simply ignored it. FWIW "dog" is the British version, I've mostly heard "monkey" in the US --Errant ^(chat!) 22:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I have retracted my own comment myself. —HXL:

聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C)

22:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Seeing that (s)he was the only user whom I was in conflict with on that page that month, it is clear that I was calling that IP (98.122.101.52) an idiot, Noformation. —HXL:

聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C)

21:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• This is not baiting. No admin intervention necessary. ╟─TreasuryTag►Acting Returning Officer─╢ 21:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• So, are we done here?
  talk
  ) 21:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, This thread appears to be 'retaliation' of some sort for notifying

WP:NPA, in which he refers to another editor as an idiot numerous times, and refers to Slakr

as paranoid. I should like to note that HXL49 has been both warned and blocked numerous times for his disruptive behavior in the past:

• attacking other users
• WP:NPA
• WP:NPA. However, his block length was reduced
  upon promising good behavior.

Neither I nor

message across. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK)

21:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Well you clearly called me a monkey when I have slung no names at you. Pardon me, but Slakr referred to himself as "paranoid at times"; if he didn't use that phrasing, I wouldn't have. —HXL:

聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C)

21:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Fastily, I knew you would notify Slakr of my request, so why would I retaliate for your message on his talk? Think this through again. —HXL:

聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C)

22:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

My comment on this thread would incidentally be the same as my recent comment on his current request for rollback. I've made other comments there regarding my reasons for opposing HXL's request. With regard to "baiting," I'm fairly certain Fastily meant no such thing, and the "can't teach an old monkey new tricks" is simply a derivation of the idiom/metaphor of "can't teach an old dog new tricks," which isn't exactly pejorative when a user continues admin-shopping despite that very same behavior failing in the past. --slakr^\ talk / 21:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you think I was really admin-shopping when I knew that my request would have to be looked over by you? Think a bit more. —HXL:

聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C)

21:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Uhhh, yeah. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Care to explain? —HXL:

聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C)

22:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really. You already know the answer. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It is what it is. I am not at fault for Slakr's usage of the "feel free to restore whenever" comment. I am not at fault for the disruption caused in December (and as recently as 2 weeks ago) at Taiwan. —HXL:

聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C)

22:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Fastily, please explain how going back to WP:RFP/R is "admin shopping" because I don't understand the accusation when HXL49 knows how (1) ubiquitous you and Slakr are on there and that (2) any new admin who would give him back the flag would refer back to the admin who removed it.

talk

) 22:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Expecting Fastily to fully explain himself is a great wish indeed. And Fastily, I nicely asked you (see the removed text) to avoid handling my requests. If you are going to ignore what I ask of you, it isn't my problem...officer —HXL:

聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C)

22:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

@Quigley: I can't speak for Fastily, but the last time the user requested rollback, he got upset when I was asked, by Fastily, for my input in the matter due to my original removal of the flag and subsequent refusal to reinstate it. That would at least indicate to me that he was shopping for a favorable admin who would just grant him the flag with no questions asked, having failed to get me to restore it. --slakr^\ talk / 22:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

↑ -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Last time was last time. Did I get upset when Fastily notified you? Why would I when I knew that some sysop would do so? This is beginning to be wholly irrational: an attempt to paint my behaviour at present as the same as what occurred around 10 June. Sigh. —HXL:

聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C)

22:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

For reference, from the old request, you said: "Fastily, I think it was rather clear from the user talk diff I gave you that deference to Slakr is not necessary." This seems to suggest to me you did not expect anyone to contact me. --slakr^\ talk / 22:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You are still referring to parts of the events of early June. This time I only stated "Note this comment in the user rights log". A step down from "deference to Slakr is not necessary". I only asked the passerby to note your comment and not to completely bypass you. —HXL:

聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C)

22:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool... so is there something else urgent that needs addressing by ANI or can we close this thread? Neither I nor Fastily intend on closing your RfR due to our prior involvement, so one of the other uninvolved admins who patrols RfR will eventually drop by and either grant or decline it. --slakr^\ talk / 22:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't care how many CSD G6 requests he satisfies; he may have been using the apparent good will in such actions to cloud any potential posts at RfR. Know that the very little trust in him I have is yet enough to believe he will not close my request. Whether he will comment on my requests, that is a different question... The message that he should not be commenting away like that...needs to sink in his head. —HXL:

聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C)

22:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

That probably will not happen anytime soon :P -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine then. Not making a promise is better than breaking one, which I am sure you do very often. —HXL:

聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C)

23:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm Slakr, you can close the thread now.

talk

) 23:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I lolled. I'm not sure how you think this sort of behavior towards admins (or really, towards anyone) is going to help you get what you want or get people to listen to you.

talk

) 23:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd be very cautious in dealing with a user who's so anxious to get the rollback privilege. Although, you could try it, and see if he misuses it again. However, that could require 24 x 7 monitoring. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:47, 7 July 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.

Suspect bot account

Resolved

 – Bot conducting an authorized trial. --RL0919 (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:MOS. Could someone take a look at the account and see if I'm misreading the activity? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk

) 23:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the link changes are good or not, but the bot is not authorized locally and doesn't appear on the list of global bots that would be permitted to change interwiki links without local permission. The bot owner appears to be from the Hebrew Wikipedia, so I've left him a message there -- in English since I don't know Hebrew, but if anyone who does cares to supplement my message, feel free. --RL0919 (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I also left a notice of this discussion at User talk:BendelacBOT. --RL0919 (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

hello everyone. my bot in is trial, you can see here. if anyone think that my bot do a mistaike, just post on my user discussion page. btw, now my bot have bot-flag in 5 wikipedias -yona bendelac (discussion) 06:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I checked for the bot flag both locally and globally, but forgot to look for trials. Anyone with concerns about the bot's specific edits can note them at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BendelacBOT#Discussion. Marking this resolved. --RL0919 (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Case

The following discussion 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.

---

Resolved

 – Block evading IP is blocked again, won't take the hint.

The earlier part of this thread is now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive709#Daniel Case.

As I understand it the appeal hierarchy is

Administrators

Arbitration Committee

Community

Once the community gives its decision the case is closed because there is no higher court. So it can't be taken back to the Arbitration Committee. I note that you've been editing under another name, although there is no reference to that in your userspace. Are you aware of the rule that an involved administrator should not block but leave it to someone else to make the call? Please explain the relationship (if any) between the Mediation Cabal (which you are involved with) and the Arbitration Committee. Are you speaking in an official capacity or as a private citizen?

This is a matter of general interest, so it would be win - win all round if Errant simply answered the question.

To D Macks: You don't darn a sock by pushing the delete button. You get needle and thread and do something constructive. Why is it always administrators who choose the lazy option? Don't the silent majority get a chance to air their views on Wikipedia? 94.195.195.252 (talk) 10:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but as I'm a newbie could you spare a few moments to give me a simple explanation of how the system works (not too technical please, as most of the technical stuff I read in Wikipedia is way over my head). Thanks. 80.229.81.66 (talk) 20:48, 6 July 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.

Just to clarify, although the last post has been added to the archive box the request is still outstanding. 92.27.84.129 (talk) 11:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Before I respond to Errant's reply on my talk page, as Errant is an involved administrator who has blocked me three times in three days he clearly has no respect for the rules. He can't be ignorant of them because he is an administrator. The same goes for Tnxman307 (two blocks in seven hours).

Now to the discussion.

You are currently not welcome to edit Wikipedia in any form whatsoever.

Who says?

You have exhausted all forms of on - wiki or community appeal, the only remaining avenue is contacting Arbcom via email.

If winning a case is "exhausting all forms of appeal" I plead guilty.

The Community does not stand above arbcom in the unblock system of hierarchy as you seem to be claiming.

Don't follow this one. Is Errant saying that the Community must do what Arbcom tells it to do? 80.40.145.34 (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Involved administrator Errant has now blocked me (and half of London) four times in three days. I believe that this behaviour is unprecedented in the decade - long history of Wikipedia. 86.176.103.218 (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

To Timotheus Canens - Administrators are not allowed to remove other administrators' comments. I have restored the thread. 81.159.255.118 (talk) 11:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Another deletion by involved administrator Errant restored. 93.96.149.196 (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

billinghurst has closed multiple similar RMs

ANI has no "admonishment" power and even if it did there is no consensus forthcoming to do any such thing, the discussion is now breaking down into a discussion on the merits which has no place at ANI. Consensus is that the name/move should be discussed at an RFC; though whether that can be incorporated into an RM section is left to the discretion of those who set it up. Although it was not discussed, it is noted that the closing instructions identify who can and cannot close discussions - the only prohibition is on closing a discussion one has participated in and nothing in this thread suggests that Billinghurst participated in any of the discussions. There is no consensus that Billinghurst shouldn't still close further discussions on this topic; however, there is an apparent majority and prudence would suggest that he should not. -- talk • contribs ) 18:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Can an admin be “uninvolved” when he has already closed multiple similar move requests? This is from Talk:Côte d'Ivoire : Date Requested move Closer Result January 2007 Côte d'Ivoire → Ivory Coast Patstuart “The result of the debate was ‘’no consensus" June 2010 Côte d'Ivoire → Ivory Coast billinghurst “The result of the move request was: No consensus, not moved” “If you think that this decision is in error, and it requires a larger approach then please look to Wikipedia:Requests for comment to make it an holistic argument." July 2010 Côte d'Ivoire → Ivory Coast billinghurst “aborting this discussion in this format.” “the means to take this further was more holistic with regard to looking to have a Wikipedia:Request for comment” July 2011 Côte d'Ivoire → Ivory Coast billinghurst “The only reasonable means to have this changed is to do it holistically and via an RFC." I respectfully request that billinghurst be admonished not to close any future discussions on Talk:Côte d'Ivoire, or any other Côte d'Ivoire/Ivory Coast related discussions. Kauffner (talk) 06:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Per WP:UNINVOLVED, so long as his prior interaction with the article was administrative, it does not count as involved. I haven't checked his history so I don't know if this is the case, however if all he's done is perform admin duties then he is pretty much doing what an admin does. Noformation Talk 08:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC) This standard would seem to be an invented one. The relevant guideline is: "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community to include...disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." The past closings were certainly disputed by various editors at the time. Not only that, but the fact that I am disputing this closing is by itself a reason for him not to be involved in this issue in the future. Kauffner (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Doesn't seem to have been involved; their actions were all administrative, not a mixture of administrative and !voting. (slight conflict of interest: I opposed the move. The OP supported the requested move and seems unhappy that the consensus didn't go their way. I'm surprised that WP:NOTDEMOCRACY hasn't been cited yet). bobrayner (talk ) 09:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC) PS. A little more AGF might help reduce friction; [9] [10] &c. bobrayner (talk) 09:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Billinghurst has already admitted earlier that he isn't impartial in this matter[11]. I don't know how he then decides that he has suddenly become impartial enough again to close this discussion. In best case this to me seems like bad judgment, if he wanted to argue for an RFC, he should have just entered it as a comment. In the worst case it's abuse of admin powers. Also, it's not clear to me that an RFC was actually necessary, I think enough parties were involved in the RM discussion to make a decision about what to call the country across all of Wikipedia.TheFreeloader (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Well, there's the smoking gun. An involved admin closed this discussion, it clearly needs to be reversed. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC) "Reversed" as in reopening the (at time of close) 13 day old debate for a few more days before another Admin closes it since it was closed as "No consensus". Or "Reverse" as in move it forth with? A little clarity please. - J Greb (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC) It should be reversed as in reopened as the close was improper due to the admin being involved. As to how an uninvolved admin should close it, well, that's up to him or her. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Sorry but since when was this a decision about all of wikipedia? WP:Engvar and other policies clearly do not require this, we only require consistency across and article. The decision should be made article by article based on the facts at play for each article. If there is any suggestion this is going to affect multiple articles there are far wider concerns. Nil Einne (talk ) 19:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC) Wiki has over a thousand admins. Just sheer coincidence that the same one keeps "aborting" and closing using the same peculiar "take it to an RFC" technique. Nothing to see here. Move along. The closings happen while people are still voting. This makes sure that not just anyone has the opportunity to close. Kauffner (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC) BWilkins ←track ) 10:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC) It would be surprising if he/she has it watchlisted. That doesn't necessarily make them involved. BTW the 4th move above is another link to the third move. I guess you intended to link to Talk:Côte d'Ivoire#Requested move. BTW even if billinghurst is involved his/her recommendation to use WP:RFC seems a sound one considering the history and a glance thru the comments, I'm not sure why it hasn't been followed. Having said that I doubt consensus will be reached for a move even with a WP:RFC Edit 19:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC): I meant to say 'wouldn't be surprising'. Nil Einne (talk ) 11:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Probably because there was an RFC about 6 months ago that had no consensus to change ... pretty much the identical arguments. ( BWilkins ←track ) 11:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Well, I'd have closed that last RM as a reasonable consensus for move based on the arguments made (although it is close support wise); but there seems no issue with billinghurst coming back to close discussions over this timespan, especially as his closing comment makes a solid point about it affecting more than one page. I suppose it is a rational argument that a new admin should be involved each time to make sure fresh eyes are on the consensus - but it's not a deal breaker. --Errant (chat!) 12:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Without assuming bad faith on the part of billinghurst, I suggest that admins generally avoid closing discussions that they have closed before. In situations where it is necessary to determine consensus, a truly uninvolved admin should be equally able to pass on a discussion as they are able to close it. Given that he/she has closed it before, I'd say the balance has tilted ever so slightly toward involved that they should not close it. If the same uninvolved admin has closed the same discussion three times in the pass, then the wise, no-brainer if I may, course of action is to move on to the next RM discussion (and there are many waiting to be closed). --rgpk (comment) 16:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC) I agree with RegentsPark and will add that in this case an active discussion was closed just hours after another comment was made. I request that the discussion be re-opened until discussion actually subsides and a truly uninvolved admin closes it. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC) It would certainly be more seemly for billinghurst to let somebody else do it. Looking at his edits, he does not seem to be somebody who (as Regentspark assumes) spends his time at WP:RM and has happened to close this question several times. Instead, he is an admin who watches this page and has several times imposed his desire (no move without an RFC, as if an RFC would be likely to show any other result on a yes/no question) on the discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC) What is the difference, really, between a re-opened move discussion and an RfC? Either way, Wikipedians talk about what the article ought to be called, and either way, a decision will have to be made based on the discussion. Why fuss over what it's called? All this time spent talking about red tape would be better spent organizing and documenting the best case for both titles, and that's true whether or not the most recent move request is "re-opened". When did we become so bureaucratic? Just do things that need to be done, and we'll get somewhere. Stop worrying so much about rules and labels. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC) That this was not a re-opened move discussion, nor isomorphic to one. The way to achieve that would have been to use {{ relist}} - or to leave it alone. Billinghurst did neither. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC) What's the argument against just having an RfC, and calling the most recent move discussion the beginning of it? Doesn't this get us ALL where we want to be, most quickly? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Not if Billinghurst closes it again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Was that sarcasm? Is that helpful? I'm talking an RfC, not a move request. RfC's aren't little forms you fill out and if it works, someone closes it in your favor. They're big-ass conversations where we try to learn what the community's consensus is on some major question. You're seriously coming out against such a conversation? Why? What's wrong with knowing as broad a possible sample of community opinion as we can obtain? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Sarcasm aside, the point you're missing is that this isn't a question of coming out for or against an RfC. Rather, it is a question of whether an admin who repeatedly closes a consensus forming request the same way is truly uninvolved or not. pmanderson's comment gets to the heart of the issue. If that admin is involved, then what's to stop him or her from closing the RfC the same way? Nothing ever gets resolved when there is the appearance of involvement on the part of the closer, however contentious or not the discussion may be. --rgpk (comment) 02:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC) No. I'm not missing that point. I think that point deserves to be left behind, and totally eclipsed by the point of what the article should be called and why. We could either argue about red tape, and rules, and propriety, and admin abuse... or we could table all that shit and write an encyclopedia already. Guess which one I'm in favor of. I grant every single point about the closure being inappropriate, and I STILL say, why not just have an RfC on an issue that clearly deserves an RfC? What have we got against broad community input? Again: I DO NOT SUPPORT THE CONTESTED CLOSURE. I support getting the hell over it, and working on the REAL issue at hand. Let's have an RfC already. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC) The argument against having an RfC is that an uninvolved admin has not yet closed the current ongoing discussion. If a truly uninvolved admin agrees that there really is no consensus and an RFC would be appropriate, that would be different. It's pretty unusual to have an RFC regarding a move discussion since we have the whole RM mechanism, and I would think there should be a good reason - in the opinion of an uninvolved admin - to have one, before we had one. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Who cares if it's unusual? This is pretty clearly a bigger case than RM usually handles. You don't have to take my word for it - I've only closed a few thousand - but this is one of the Big Ones. It deserves a large venue for discussion, because it will set lots of precedents. No matter how an RM discussion is closed, you still only have the weight of an RM discussion supporting the result. You want this outcome to be supported by as much weight as possible, so it's a Very Good Idea, from your perspective, to have a broad RfC. What is there to possibly be against, besides the oddness of it? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Well, if you really want an RfC, we can throw an RFC tag on top of the RM tag, that way more people (possibly) get to see it, and we can continue the discussion we had going.TheFreeloader (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Maybe I'll do that. What I think is absurd is that people seem more interested in whether a closure was appropriate or not than they are interested in arriving at the correct decision. That is an example of how Wikipedia is NOT supposed to work. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC) We're disagreeing on how best to get to the best decision (I reject the notion that there is one "correct" decision. But I have no objection to throwing an RFC tag on the existing (and now re-opened by yours truly) discussion - I certainly won't remove it - though I still don't see the need for it until and unless an uninvolved admin closes it as no consensus. By the way, the issue of whether billinghurst should have closed this discussion, and whether he should be closing discussions involving this topic in general, is what still needs to be addressed by an admin, though consensus seems pretty clear, especially since it has been discovered that he admitted being biased on the issue a year ago. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC) Sure, you see no need for additional steps until you don't get your way, and then you're ready to move heaven and hell, and re-open a discussion twice, yourself ([12],[13]). If I did that shit, you'd be reverting me and accusing me of admin abuse right now, but you can judge as invalid and revert closures as many times as you want. Why didn't someone else re-open it, if it's so obvious? Why not wait for someone uninvolved? What would be the harm, or is waiting for someone uninvolved only a wise move for people you disagree with? I guess since we're to play by Born2cycle's rules, I'll leave this discussion and get to work on maintaining a move-request-turned-de-facto-RfC at the end of the RM backlog for as long as possible. What a load. This isn't how we're supposed to work, fellas. We've started to care way too much about how we get there, and we're losing sight of where we get. I dunno, maybe the bottom of the RM backlog is a good place to advertise particularly contentious moves. That's actually worth considering, and finding a way to congeal into something more solid than these late-night musings... -GTBacchus(talk) 05:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC) I think you might be onto something with that idea about adding a special contentious move section to the bottom of the backlog. I can't speak for others - I don't know why so many complained (at the talk page as well as here) about the improper close, but nobody else re-opened it. I waited, but then finally decided on being WP:BOLD about that too[14]. Again, the main issue here about whether billinghurst should have been closing these discussions, and, if not, whether he should be admonished for doing so, is still open. --Born2cycle (talk ) 16:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC) The reason that I'm arguing for the RfC and not setting one up... well, I've advertised the discussion, which is essentially the same work as opening an RfC. What's also important to me is that Wikipedians don't get caught up in bureaucracy and start believing that formalities are required. The more that attitude is allowed to reign here, the worse Wikipedia works. IAR is incredibly important to me, and I see a lot of people misunderstanding it. That is more important than the name of Ivory Coast, so that's where I'm coming from. The issue of people being admonished is completely uninteresting to me. The level of static generated is admonishment in itself. Let the lawyers lawyer until their tongues turn blue; I won't be listening. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC) What's up with this "Côte d'Ivoire" stuff? I thought this was the English Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC) That point belongs at Talk:Côte_d'Ivoire#Requested_move:_C.C3.B4te_d.27Ivoire_--.3E_Ivory_Coast, not here. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk ) 16:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC) I don't think the question of which version of wikipedia this is need be confined to an article talk page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC) There's no dispute that this is the English wikipedia nor that Côte d'Ivoire is one of the countries English names (whether it's the more common one is what's in dispute). If you want to have OT discussions, a far bigger issue is the apparent mistaken belief by some people as expressed in this thread that the RM will affect the decision wikipedia wide either way. This is clearly not supported by policy as WP:Engvar and other policies clearly only require consistency within an article, not between articles. The decision should be made on an article by article basis. And in cases where there is apparent variation in what sources use, then following the norm in the local variety of English is clearly appropriate. I've seen this before with RMs and is rather disappointing people still have this belief. Nil Einne (talk ) 19:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC) There's also a case to be made for consistency across articles, at least in some cases. In fact, consistency is one of the primary criteria laid out at WP:AT. You're right that the overall topic of what to call the nation in question is bigger than one RM, though. That's why people have been suggesting we widen the scope to an RfC, which is really just to say, that we get more participation and have a big ol' discussion. -GTBacchus(talk ) 22:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC) User talk:Nil Einne#Consistency for some clarification/further comments. Note my primary concern was the usage in articles (not article titles) although I do believe we don't always have to be consistent in titles as well (and this is supported both by written policy including WP:AT and practice) particularly in a case when there is geographical variation in the name in English or where one name is used by certain organisations all the time. As I mentioned there, we do have Bronze (color) and Orange (colour) and the plenty of similar examples. If you try to rename them all in the interest of consistency, you're likely to find yourself right here at ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC) Don't worry, I'm not anywhere close to advocating anything like that, and you needn't refer to policy for me. There are good reasons to do lots of things, and it's hard to make completely general statements. I've done a lot of work maintaining the regional varieties cease-fire. We're one the same side here; don't worry. I sometimes express myself strangely. I'm not familiar with the usual AN/I lingo, so I just say stuff sometimes. C'est la vie. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Literate readers of English recognize "this 'Côte d'Ivoire' stuff" as one of the English names of a certain African country. I learned about Côte d'Ivoire in English language sources, and continue to do so, by that name. Welcome to the Anglophone world, Bugs. You learn something new every day, at least if you care to. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC) Although I agree with much of your stance on naming, I think that tone is unhelpful. The discussion is contentious enough already, before we drop gentle hints that those who prefer a different name are ignorant or illiterate. So far people have mostly been restrained - just the occasional bit of snarkiness (on both "sides") - and I hope we can continue in that direction. Otherwise the debate will just get more nasty, more dramatic, and more contentious - without actually making anybody happier about the article title. bobrayner (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC) You're entirely right about the tone. Bugs wasn't trying to contribute to the debate, though, in any serious way. I know this guy, and sometimes he needs shutting down. If he decides to participate in a constructive manner, I'll dig it the most, but I'm not holding my breath. Don't worry; I'm not taking this line any further. -GTBacchus(talk) 14:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC) I close many move discussions and usually (though not always, unfortunately!) even contentious discussions settle down after some kicking and screaming when the closing admin/editor is seen as genuinely uninvolved. The longer a history of apparently involved closures, the harder it is for closure in later discussions (positions harden, the malaise of unfairness settles in, etc. etc.). After all, no amount of deliberation is going to convince the Côte d'Ivoire cohort that Ivory Coast is the correct title and the Ivory Coast contingent that Côte d'Ivoire is the correct title. But, if the 'losing' side views the process as fair, it allows them to move on and be productive editors elsewhere. That's why the means are often more important than the ends, even when viewed as bureaucratic or unnecessary (it is almost never the latter). However, I don't think we're going to get some sort of resolution with this thread. So, I suggest marking this as resolved and moving on. Meanwhile, I'll take up the issue of serial closings up on the RM talk page. --rgpk (comment) 15:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC) The only comments in this thread defending billinghurst's actions were obviously made without knowledge of his previous involvement and bias. Why is it so difficult for someone to recognize this, and, instead of saying "I don't think we're going to get some sort of resolution with this thread", noting that the result of this ANI is that consensus is clear agreement that it was inappropriate for billinghurst to close those discussions, and that he is to refrain from doing so in the future. If we just close this without doing even that, what's to stop him from closing even the current discussion again, much less the inevitable next one? Once again I suspect the thin blue line inhibiting admins from reprimanding other admins. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Please restore my "sandbox"

Resolved

 – At this point no administrator seems inclined to take action on Kiwi Bomb's request and there isn't much else to talk about. Of course if some admin does come along and wants to restore the page there's nothing prohibiting that.

--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Dreadstar has deleted the work area in which I created Lewinsky (neologism). This has lead to the misunderstanding that my first edit was to create that article fully-formed. I asked Dreadstar to restore it but their response was "If you think I'm enabling a disruptive sock/spa account, you've got another think coming. Plenty of other admins to go to for this besides trying to rub it in my nose." KayBee (talk) 05:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The article itself still exists. You could copy it to your computer and work on it there. I expect that because it's thought to be a BLP violation and is a candidate for deletion on that basis, they don't want extra copies of it running around. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Kiwi Bomb, (anagram: Wikibomb) could you please reveal the name of your primary account? Viriditas (talk) 11:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Note that such is not a requirement at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to review

WP:ILLEGIT at your convenience, Collect. Viriditas (talk

) 11:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

There's no question Bomb is a single-purpose account, and one that appears to know wikipedia pretty well, which spells "sock", although if his primary account is not blocked, he could try to argue that he's within the rules. However, refreshing my memory now by reading your citation, he looks suspect on several points. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to mention, one of the points discussed at the DRV was that the single edit creation of the article was strong evidence for the editor being a sock, knowing that there was an edit history for the article in user space would have been very helpful in the discussion and never came up. I don't see much point in restoring it now, but I would like to know why it wasn't revealed at the DRV. Monty₈₄₅ 15:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• We're being trolled here, and trolled quite well given the all-enveloping shitstorm that has surrounded the creation of yet another article on a fake neologism (and the ensuing attempts to add it top various sexual slang templates and lists, as well as a fucking disambig link at the top of Monica Lewinsky itself) plus an article on Lewinsky's non-notable father. Block, delete, and let's be done with the games. Tarc (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • It's a more legitimate expression than "santorum". That's a fake neologism if ever there was one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Bugs, that is a minor quibbling that ignores the bulk of what I said. What's your point? Tarc (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
      • You're the one who said is was "fake", which is apparently an untrue statement. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
        • There's no such thing as a 'fake neogolism', People coin phrases all the time. Some catch on, and some don't. I don't think we need to dwell on that. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The article I created in my "sandbox" was deleted with no discussion and I was blocked for creating it. While I was blocked I was accused of being a sockpuppet. The article has been restored, the block has been lifted, and there was no evidence to suggest that I am a sockpuppet. I have broken no rules here. I have asked for my work area to be restored because people continue to be mislead by claims that the article appeared in its finished form. If the article is not in violation of any rules how can an earlier incomplete version be in violation of the rules? Please restore my "sandbox". KayBee (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think you need this work area restored? If you think just because there are a series of edits there and that this will somehow exonerate you in the eyes of those that feel you're a sock, you're sorely mistaken, as there's plenty of other extenuating weirdness about your sudden presence in the Wikipedia, not the least of which is your username (kiwibomb --> wikibomb). The content itself of the sandbox is just the fake Lewinsky neologism, which is on the verge of deletion. Once that happens, you don't get to retain copies of deleted content in your userspace. Tarc (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You need to stop calling it a "fake" neologism, as that's undermining your argument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Undermines it for who, people like you who have apparently taken the Grand Prize in the red herring fishing derby? Pardon me if I don't lose much sleep over your concern, but don't sidetrack the conversation on a silly tangent like this, please. The major issue here is a non-new user who even today is still pulling stunts like using a picture of Lewinsky to illustrate the neologism article. Tarc (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I found it on Urban Dictionary, with a posting date of 2003. You can argue whether that's a legitimate source, but you can't argue that the OP made it up. The santorum thing, on the other hand, was made up by a radio jock who wanted to equate his own bodily fluids with a public official. You can't get any more fake than that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

When did I ever say that this Kiwi sock created the word? Oh wait, I didn't. Kiwi Bomb is to a "lewinsky" as Cirt is to a "santorum"; neither created, but perpetuated. Tarc (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm, do you think maybe they got the idea from

Campaign for "santorum" neologism‎? I think I tried to have those images of Santorum and Savage removed from an earlier version of the article, but no one wanted to listen. Sauce for the goose, etc? Delicious carbuncle (talk

) 17:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I have twice explained why I would like it restored. It appears there was no justification for Dreadstar having deleted it in the first place, but I must argue to have it restored? Is this how things are normally done at Wikipedia? Editors are blocked for creating properly formatted articles about notable topics? Why have I been singled out to be insulted and treated with hostility? Bigtimepeace appears to have done nothing else but try to make thinsg as difficult as possible for me for the last few days. Does Wikipedia have an ombudsman who can intervene on my behalf? KayBee (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You conveniently sidestepped my question; what use to you have for the sandbox restoration, if the sandbox is just a copy of an article that is now out in article-space? If you really think you're in the right here, just take a copy of the current neologism and paste it into your sandbox sub-page. It will have a short shelf-life, but its your trip, as they say. Tarc (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You sound very familiar, KayBee. Have we met before? Recently? Did you used to go by another name? It's clear you're not a new editor yet you keep pretending you are. Why do you do that? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

If this goes the way the BarkingMoon thing went, you may as well abandon that line of questioning, because nothing will be done anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why you can't let him have his sandbox! There was no reason for deleting it; clearly the BLP argument can't be valid if it's already been rejected for the article itself. Doesn't the principle of the thing matter to anyone here? He shouldn't even have had to ask. And this constant ABF sock puppet nonsense directed at someone just because they're editing correctly - someone who could well have learned editing and developed some opinions on our local politics as an IP - that's just repugnant. Wikipedia shouldn't see editors treated this way at all, let alone on the main admin page! Wnt (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we get a sense of how ridiculous and childish this is when we have an account literally asking to have their sandbox back.

There is no need for this, whatsoever. The article Kiwi Bomb created might well be deleted, which would make all of this moot. Even were it not, restoring the sandbox is pointless and will do nothing to change anyone's views of this new user account. The idea that people not knowing about the sandbox has affected anything about the ensuing debate or opinions about "KB" is absurd.

Personally I am strongly of the view that this account is, to put it mildly, not really here to help and should have remained blocked. Sorry if that offends Kiwi Bomb or anyone else, but it's just what I think based on some pretty clear behavioral evidence, and it's perfectly legitimate for anyone to think that. I think I'm a very

assume good faith sort of chap as a general rule, but I don't have it for this particular account. I am not at all inclined to grant this request and would suggest other admins not do so either. And I suggest that someone close this section soon, because the whole point of it is to waste our time. There are plenty of articles for Kiwi Bomb to work on and since they are free to edit now they should get cracking, rather than stirring up pointless drama. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs

22:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the majority of the "pointless drama" was not the result of Kiwi. The above conversation is so chock-full of self importance and bad faith that there's very little room for reasonable discourse. Something was deleted out of process, the person asks nicely for it to be put back... It should have been very simple. But instead we've got people playing Judd Dredd. -

Aaron Brenneman (talk

) 23:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, I may be new around here, but I know WP:Dick when I see it. Why not restore the sandbox? Dot196 (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm old around here, and I know

WP:DUCK when I see it... GiantSnowman

23:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Any reason not to merge the sandbox history with the article? If it's deleted, it's still deleted, but meanwhile the history has been restored per the user's request. — kwami (talk) 23:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Well Aaron, you are an administrator, and no one is stopping you from restoring the sandbox if you think that's the right thing to do. Rather than taking shots at the paucity of the discourse--which rather adds to the paucity of the discourse--right the wrong, as you perceive it. I believe we are being played by the user in question and don't feel like playing along with them--but that's just me. If you take what they are asking for on good faith, terrific, fulfill their request and shut down this "self-important" discussion. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

And now we have

don't be a dick wiki-adage? Hmmm... Tarc (talk

) 23:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I normally prefer to stay out of these discussions but I agree with snowman and tarc. Passes duck and is rather obviously trolling. - 4twenty42o (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

@BigTimePeace: I was actually only prevented from doing so when this request first appeared by difficulties in the big room. Unfortunately I now feel that, despite the poor discourse, to restore would be unsupported by consensus.

@Tarc: Then file a report and get it check-usered. We have systems in place, use those systems. If the check user comes back clean, then put down the pitchfork and back away.

Please stop chasing ghosts, and when there is something actually disruptive that a user does, then treat them the same as any other user, with calm polite warnings leading to escalating actions to prevent further disruption. Surely the duck hunters can recall the entire mess with Durova, !!, and "profane german"? Trolling only works when you're sucked into it.

Aaron Brenneman (talk

) 00:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

SPI and CU already run here and came up with nothing. Essentially, Dreadstar and others are acting the epitome of WP:Dick to a new user. Silverseren^C 00:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't need technical evidence to know a returning user when I see one, and neither do many others. I see your

WP:DUCK. Tarc (talk

) 00:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe folks can stop calling other folks dicks or accusing them of acting like dicks, that would help with things. Plus it's too close to WP:DUCK so people might get confused. If someone wants to help turn this discussion in a more fruitful direction though, they could create WP:DICKDUCK or WP:DUCKDICK (not sure which one is better). I don't know what it would mean but we need an essay like that stat!

Aaron my argument, and that of some others, is that this user has been disruptive. If you think not, fair enough, but to me their edit history seems to indicate a clear desire to stir up controversy and trouble, which has indeed happened. If you think the consensus here is against restoring the sandbox, okay, but I I'm not sure there's really consensus for anything, and so I don't think admins are necessarily limited from doing what Kiwi Bomb wants here. Obviously it's up to you though.

If no one is going to restore the sandbox then we should mark this resolved, because continued conversation is not going to help anyone. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed -
  Aaron Brenneman (talk
  ) 00:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:BITE are what should matter. If someone is eager to checkuser Dot196 I can understand being suspicious is an admin's job, but a person proved innocent shouldn't be still treated as guilty. Wnt (talk

) 04:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Sinharib99

Someone needs to persuade

talk

) 13:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you mean biographies. ;) In any case, since DGG's note the editor hasn't created any unreferenced BLPs, the only BLP they created since that note was Praydon Darmoo which at least has a reference to a newspaper article. So I'd suggest that DGG did get through to Sinharib99, to a degree. -- Atama頭 17:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Doubtful, user was warned about the same in March of 2010; took a break and did the same thing again. N^oformation ^Talk 07:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No, no we must stamp out these unreferenced bibliographies. I'm asking the WMF to develop software. Do we want an article such as

talk

) 14:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

And just what will this software do? Programmatically determine that a one-line stub is a "bibliography", and come up with some clever way of flagging it as such? We already have a low-tech solution for that: it's called "new page patrol". At Atama said, were the user still involved in the "rapid creation of unreferenced bibliographies" then there might be some need for immediate action, but since DGG's comment he hasn't created any more (although two created in the hours before DGG's comment have been deleted). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

That was a joke about bibliographies. Since he's stopped, I guess we can wait and see, I'll take the Praydon Darmoo to BLPN though.

talk

) 16:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Returned user User:Everyme

• 84.44.182.35
• 87.78.55.135
• 87.79.225.139
• 84.44.230.33
• 87.78.52.92
• 84.44.182.35
• 84.44.231.244

Not entirely sure how to handle this. I saw a dispute on the Village Pump

User:Xavexgoem

unblocked Everyme with the edit summary "Long past done - close eye by me".

After I commented on the dispute at VPP, the IP came to my talkpage and confirmed he is Everyme. However, his tone became more antagonistic and I advised he calm down. Instead, he leveled a clear personal attack against me. I left a warning on his talkpage, which he removed with the edit summary "fuck off, dipshit".

I had left a message with Xavexgoem, but no response so far. I really don't know how to handle this. Normally, I'd call for another indef block, if not a ban, but Everyme has already stated on my talk page that "Nothing short of a rangeblock is going to stop me from contributing anyway".

I'm sure Everyme will take this report as proof that I'm out to get him, just like everyone else. Honestly, that was not my intention at the beginning; I simply wanted to understand the dispute and attempt to clam him down. He seems intent on playing the victim, though, and on disrupting the project until it conforms to his wishes. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's no question he saw the warning, since he deleted it. The IP is part of a /19 range, so a rangeblock would be potentially painful. Someone more familiar with the user's history should probably look over the recent activity and make a determination on how to proceed. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Not that he is using the old account, but why was he unblocked? I concur with HTF...he isn't here to help and trolling. People under a rangeblock could get an account.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why he was unblocked, but he says he no longer has the password to the Everyme account. Also, he seems happy to use his IP, because it lets him avoid scrutiny: "This is exactly why it's good to have no account. You guys can hold your witchburning palavers all you want. I'll just move on to the next thing." He seems quite set on avoiding any block to continue his editing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there any way to list the contributions from a certain range? It'd be nice to see in a case like this, at least to the extent that we'd see how many people would be impacted from a range block. RxS (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Between the four IPs listed, the user has three separate ranges in play, two of which look to be dial-in access, which makes them dynamic by definition...and one of those is a /15 range. It's all from the same ISP. It may be too early to be thinking block evasion, since the original block was lifted. I'm thinking that going the opposite direction might be a better option: semi the page. I don't see any other IPs involved in the discussion in question. Just my 2p worth.— Preceding unsigned comment added by N5iln (talk • contribs) 11:57, July 6, 2011

He states that he doesn't have an account but he indicates a willingness to sock. He also is participating in discussions on talk page archive templates that make it sound like he has an account...why would he care if he was only going to contribute as an IP? Should we get a checkuser to take a look?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The way the IP list is growing, it might not be a bad idea, and

WP:CHK doesn't consider such as fishing. I'll hoist the {{Checkuser needed}} flag. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk

) 18:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Note that the blocks did not block him from editing anonymously, and I know he's been editing for a while anonymously. A rangeblock at his range would knock out a fair bit of Germany, iirc.

Xavexgoem (talk

) 20:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Since you're here, can you explain why the Everyme account was unblocked? And since you're keeping an eye on him, did you note his rather acerbic VPP comments? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This user seems to have a history of not only sockpuppetry, but of using childish insults to refer to others [16]. Frankly, I think the main account should be indeffed, and further attempts at sockpupptery should be reverted and blocked. I'm also not sure why his user page is protected indefinitely [17]... I'm not sure "human dignity" is a legitimate reason for indefinite protection. Night Ranger (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember why I unblocked him, maybe I was feeling generous. And also: you all can, y'know, ignore him. It's really your only option.

Xavexgoem (talk

) 00:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You probably weren't the best person to unblock him as the following seems to indicate you're some kind of friend of his [18]. My apologies if I'm reading that wrong. No, ignoring him isn't the only option the community has. They can also insist that the account be reblocked, as it ought to have been left, as the person who created it is engaging in

abusive sockpuppetry and being disruptive enough to make people bring it here for resolution. Night Ranger (talk

) 03:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

So, your solution to dealing with a problematic editor is to ignore the problem? Nice. So, how are we supposed to have a civil discussion about the issue on VPP while he keeps acting like this? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

 Declined – Given that Everyme hasn't edited since 2008, and the only source of disruption seems to be coming from IPs, there is nothing here for CU to do. You're free to look at contributions from entire IP ranges with this tool; what we have so far are 84.44.128.0/17 and 87.78.0.0/15, in which the latter is too large to technically rangeblock in any aspect. You have a similar situation when looking at all the IPs listed at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Everyme. I don't think there is much that can be done here as far as blocks are concerned, and from my quick analysis of the situation, the most reasonable option would have to be protection of all involved pages. –MuZemike 22:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I have reblocked the account per the above discussion. It will at least have the advantage that it will be obvious that we are dealing with IPs from a blocked user, not from an unblocked user, which means that any such IPs can be temporarily blocked for block evasion if needed.

Fram (talk

) 08:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't know this will discourage him, but at least it'll provide a way to slow him down, and maybe he'll think about discussing the problems instead of attacking other editors. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Fastily and baiting

Resolved

 – No further administrative action required. No baiting here - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

Nice try at attempting to "bait" me, Fastily. His response to my latest request for rollback is an escalation from the declines of this previous rollback request, and this autoreviewed request. He had been

聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C)

20:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

What administrator intervention do you want from this board?

talk

) 21:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Some enforcement if he responds to me at a page beginning with WP:Requests for _ even once with the sort of colours he has shown to me. —HXL:

聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C)

21:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't blame Fastily responding as such when, in your rollback request, you refer to other users as idiots. No, I didn't read the diff, because it doesn't matter, your request was uncivil. N^oformation ^Talk 21:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear who HXL49 called an "idiot" if anybody; there's just a link to the history of the Taiwan article, which is often a target for IP vandals and trolls. On the other hand, administrators are held to a higher standard of decorum, and the fact that Fastily called HXL49 a "monkey" does raise some questions as to whether Fastily is baiting HXL49.

talk

) 21:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This lengthy diff contains the "idiot" remark, FYI:[19] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, hey, it's a humorous and light-hearted American figure of speech. Rest assured, no monkey business intended ;) -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The more typical version is "you can't an old dog new tricks". Whether that's better or worse than being called a monkey, I couldn't say. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't care if it's intended (really?) to be humourous and light-hearted. The connotations that it could possibly carry are what matters. I demand a retracting of the 'monkey' comment right this moment, and your lighter tone here is merely spraying salt on a wound. —HXL:

聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C)

21:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hah, well, okay. Feel free to glean unintended meanings from my words if it floats your boat :P -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

That you used 'monkey' instead of 'dog' should speak entirely for itself, you know. Not so much about the intent as the victim's reception of it. And I believe that is what's taught in (American) schools about bullying, is it? —HXL:

聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C)

22:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This is much the idea of "you get what you give"; because the idea of civility borders both ways. You pretty much left yourself open, not to abuse, but to a lessened standard of politeness, when you refer to another editor as paranoid. Perhaps take a page from Slakr's book - he did not demand you retract that. Simply ignored it. FWIW "dog" is the British version, I've mostly heard "monkey" in the US --Errant ^(chat!) 22:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I have retracted my own comment myself. —HXL:

聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C)

22:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Seeing that (s)he was the only user whom I was in conflict with on that page that month, it is clear that I was calling that IP (98.122.101.52) an idiot, Noformation. —HXL:

聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C)

21:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• This is not baiting. No admin intervention necessary. ╟─TreasuryTag►Acting Returning Officer─╢ 21:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• So, are we done here?
  talk
  ) 21:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, This thread appears to be 'retaliation' of some sort for notifying

WP:NPA, in which he refers to another editor as an idiot numerous times, and refers to Slakr

as paranoid. I should like to note that HXL49 has been both warned and blocked numerous times for his disruptive behavior in the past:

• attacking other users
• WP:NPA
• WP:NPA. However, his block length was reduced
  upon promising good behavior.

Neither I nor

message across. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK)

21:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Well you clearly called me a monkey when I have slung no names at you. Pardon me, but Slakr referred to himself as "paranoid at times"; if he didn't use that phrasing, I wouldn't have. —HXL:

聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C)

21:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Fastily, I knew you would notify Slakr of my request, so why would I retaliate for your message on his talk? Think this through again. —HXL:

聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C)

22:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

My comment on this thread would incidentally be the same as my recent comment on his current request for rollback. I've made other comments there regarding my reasons for opposing HXL's request. With regard to "baiting," I'm fairly certain Fastily meant no such thing, and the "can't teach an old monkey new tricks" is simply a derivation of the idiom/metaphor of "can't teach an old dog new tricks," which isn't exactly pejorative when a user continues admin-shopping despite that very same behavior failing in the past. --slakr^\ talk / 21:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you think I was really admin-shopping when I knew that my request would have to be looked over by you? Think a bit more. —HXL:

聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C)

21:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Uhhh, yeah. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Care to explain? —HXL:

聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C)

22:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really. You already know the answer. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It is what it is. I am not at fault for Slakr's usage of the "feel free to restore whenever" comment. I am not at fault for the disruption caused in December (and as recently as 2 weeks ago) at Taiwan. —HXL:

聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C)

22:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Fastily, please explain how going back to WP:RFP/R is "admin shopping" because I don't understand the accusation when HXL49 knows how (1) ubiquitous you and Slakr are on there and that (2) any new admin who would give him back the flag would refer back to the admin who removed it.

talk

) 22:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Expecting Fastily to fully explain himself is a great wish indeed. And Fastily, I nicely asked you (see the removed text) to avoid handling my requests. If you are going to ignore what I ask of you, it isn't my problem...officer —HXL:

聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C)

22:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

@Quigley: I can't speak for Fastily, but the last time the user requested rollback, he got upset when I was asked, by Fastily, for my input in the matter due to my original removal of the flag and subsequent refusal to reinstate it. That would at least indicate to me that he was shopping for a favorable admin who would just grant him the flag with no questions asked, having failed to get me to restore it. --slakr^\ talk / 22:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

↑ -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Last time was last time. Did I get upset when Fastily notified you? Why would I when I knew that some sysop would do so? This is beginning to be wholly irrational: an attempt to paint my behaviour at present as the same as what occurred around 10 June. Sigh. —HXL:

聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C)

22:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

For reference, from the old request, you said: "Fastily, I think it was rather clear from the user talk diff I gave you that deference to Slakr is not necessary." This seems to suggest to me you did not expect anyone to contact me. --slakr^\ talk / 22:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You are still referring to parts of the events of early June. This time I only stated "Note this comment in the user rights log". A step down from "deference to Slakr is not necessary". I only asked the passerby to note your comment and not to completely bypass you. —HXL:

聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C)

22:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool... so is there something else urgent that needs addressing by ANI or can we close this thread? Neither I nor Fastily intend on closing your RfR due to our prior involvement, so one of the other uninvolved admins who patrols RfR will eventually drop by and either grant or decline it. --slakr^\ talk / 22:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't care how many CSD G6 requests he satisfies; he may have been using the apparent good will in such actions to cloud any potential posts at RfR. Know that the very little trust in him I have is yet enough to believe he will not close my request. Whether he will comment on my requests, that is a different question... The message that he should not be commenting away like that...needs to sink in his head. —HXL:

聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C)

22:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

That probably will not happen anytime soon :P -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine then. Not making a promise is better than breaking one, which I am sure you do very often. —HXL:

聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C)

23:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm Slakr, you can close the thread now.

talk

) 23:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I lolled. I'm not sure how you think this sort of behavior towards admins (or really, towards anyone) is going to help you get what you want or get people to listen to you.

talk

) 23:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd be very cautious in dealing with a user who's so anxious to get the rollback privilege. Although, you could try it, and see if he misuses it again. However, that could require 24 x 7 monitoring. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:47, 7 July 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.

Suspect bot account

Resolved

 – Bot conducting an authorized trial. --RL0919 (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:MOS. Could someone take a look at the account and see if I'm misreading the activity? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk

) 23:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the link changes are good or not, but the bot is not authorized locally and doesn't appear on the list of global bots that would be permitted to change interwiki links without local permission. The bot owner appears to be from the Hebrew Wikipedia, so I've left him a message there -- in English since I don't know Hebrew, but if anyone who does cares to supplement my message, feel free. --RL0919 (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I also left a notice of this discussion at User talk:BendelacBOT. --RL0919 (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

hello everyone. my bot in is trial, you can see here. if anyone think that my bot do a mistaike, just post on my user discussion page. btw, now my bot have bot-flag in 5 wikipedias -yona bendelac (discussion) 06:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I checked for the bot flag both locally and globally, but forgot to look for trials. Anyone with concerns about the bot's specific edits can note them at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BendelacBOT#Discussion. Marking this resolved. --RL0919 (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Zachariel

Content dispute misconstrued as harassment. Consider dispute resolution. --causa sui (talk ) 22:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Zachariel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Unresolved This user is following me all around WP and yesterday reverted two of my edits on different articles where he has never worked before. Diffs : [20] [21] [22] . In one of these reverts he is even restoring a dead external link, so the reverts are not done sensibly. There is an earlier history of various trouble with this editor, and I already pointed him to the WP policies with regards to wikihounding last month. I would like this ongoing harasment to stop. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Since the user name you used didn't exist, I checked your contributions and I think you mis-spelled the person's username; I've changed it for you. Also, note that you're supposed to notify people when you talk about them here, so I'll do that for you now. User got it just after I posted here Qwyrxian (talk) 05:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC) No comment on the issue itself though. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the correction MakeSense64 (talk) 05:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Hmm, no comment is what I feel inclined to make myself on this silly report. But for the record, I'm a member of the Wiki astrology project and I've been working very actively to improve and develop the quality of articles related to that theme, and to bring them up to a good article standard. I also use the star pages refered to here myself in my own research projects. If you check the contributions history of Makesense64 you will see that in the last month alone he has placed critical tags on a huge amount of pages that relate to astrology (more than 50) and called for swift deletion of content of some of the pages. I have commented on a very small fraction of these (about 6) mainly to contest deletion of valuable content that I have then committed to improving to ensure the issues are resolved. See for example, the latest at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Astrological_organizations. Again for the record, Makesense64 is very freeflowing with his criticsm of content and desire to have astrological references removed, but he doesn't contribute towards fixing the issues, which is where I place my editorial commitment, involving a great deal of time and hard work. But anyway, check the history, the worst I have done is disagree with him through reasoned arguments and last night I undid two edits for which he claimed imaginary consensus when in fact the only response he had received from other editors was objections to his proposal to remove the astrological references. As for the links, I did not realise the second link was dead. His explanatory comment was that the two links were removed for not being 'astronomical', not 'dead'. I checked the first and saw that it was clearly relevant to the page theme, even though its primary focus was astrological rather than astronomical. His mission appeared to be to remove all astrological references from the page even though he had not found support for his view so I undid the edits and reminded him that he had not got the consensus he was implying he had. Restoring the dead link was a mistake, but easily corrected without allegations of harresment. (Indeed, upon realising the problem, I just went and fixed it). Zac Δ talk 06:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC) This doesn't explain the wikihounding. The articles about Algol and Gamma_Corvi do not fall under the WP astrology project, so how come you are following me there like a shadow to undo my edits? That's the question. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC) The fact that a huge amount of astrology articles are fairly tagged with various issues (by me and by others) makes it all the more strange that you end up working at exactly those articles where I have just done some edit. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Re-read the above with more attention to my comments. You've obviously taken umbridge to the fact that I have undone two of your edits, but not without ggood reasons that were made apparent. Is it really strange that when I see a page tagged by you for swift deletion, I then swiftly follow that with an argument that the page should not be deleted and offer a commitment to developing the content and fixing the issues? I am an active editor and a very small number of your many pages of astrological interest overlap with mine. I wouldn't have time to haress you if I wanted to, which I certainly don't, so please stop wasting everyone's time. I really have nothing more to say except that if you have any issues with my editorial contributions I am happy to address your concerns on the relevant talk pages with civility and reason Zac Δ talk 06:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC) This is not stalking; from the article: "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." Undoing a couple edits in no way meets the criteria. Nothing for an admin to do here. Noformation Talk 07:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC) I would not complain if it was only the undoing of a few edits. After disagreement on a few other pages he followed me here within hours [23] and went on to confront me on the talk page [24], see 'Is Astrodata a citable source on Wikipedia?' and several next sections. In fact his comments there (under a different name) already suggest that he has singled me out. Then there were other events you can find in his log files. And now he is back, 'accidentally' following me to non-astrology articles to revert my edits there, articles that are probably not widely followed. This is not stalking? MakeSense64 (talk) 08:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC) I am loathe to waste time on this, because this editor has a history of drawing upon every WP policy known to man to try to find reasons why I should not be allowed to comment on his disruptive astrological edits. Not one complaint has ever been supported by any admin or editor - I contributed to the 'Astrodata' discussion because this arose as a direct result of his questioning one of my references on the Dennis Elwell (astrologer) page which he had tagged for deletion, partly on the basis that it lacked references; nothing sinister as he is trying to make out. Anyway: 1) There has not been any instance of a non-astrology interaction as he claims. If he can present one, I will be happy to comment further. 2) There have been three pages where he has argued for swift deletion of pages and I have contested and put considerable time and effort into helping to bring those pages to a good standard. This appears to annoy him. 3) Besides the fact that I regularly use the star pages as a researcher on that subject, I became aware of the Algol edit because I have noticed this editor targetting links that go to a certain website the owner against whom he has a personal vendetta; so I have those pages on my watchlist. In the Algol edit (which *co-incidentally* involved the removal of a link to this person's website) he refered to the Gamma Corvi for justification of his edit, so again, nothing sinister, no attempt to trail him ..., however I am aware of the need to keep the pages he is likely to target for disruption or deletion on my watchlist. I think it can be seen from his multiduninous numnber of targeted astrology pages, and my response on only a handful which I then commit to developing and invest good time in, that my motivation is only concerned with preserving and improving the value of editorial content, and I have no desire whatsoever to fix my interest on him as a person or editor. Nothing could be further from the truth. Zac Δ talk 12:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC) This is once again becoming uncivil WP:CIVIL: unnecessary personal comments that are not to the topic, and even complaining that I am sticking to WP policy. Several misrepresentations of facts in this comment: I never tagged the Dennis Elwell (astrologer) for deletion, just check the page history. As for your numbered comments: 1) Algol and Gamma_Corvi are articles under the scope of astronomy, so I was fairly wondering why you follow me there. 2) I have only nominated one page for swift deletion , giving my reasons on the talk page. When you expressed the intention to keep and improve the page I have even helped you how it can be turned into a proper list article. See Talk:List_of_Astrological_organizations 3) This can explain why you came to the astronomical pages about Algol and Gamma_Corvi, but now it sounds like you are monitoring that page for guarding the external link to the website you are talking about. That's equally questionable and suggests a COI. Bottom line: to accuse me that I am targetting pages for 'disruption and deletion' shows a lack of good faith, a requirement for participating on WP. I have never vandalized any page, and the only page I nominated for deletion I have helped you to improve. So? MakeSense64 (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC) So?? So get on and do some constructive editing??? You fairly wondered and I fairly answered, so in the light of good faith, what more is there to say? I am not the one complaining about you left right and centre, issuing warnings to you left right and centre, and placing blocking and potential banning notices to you on your user page, like you have done to me in the past (which an admin then said was unnecessary and revealed an unacceptable level of aggression on your part) and again today (now removed but still visible in my history for the record. I have explained why the policy was not broken IMO and that I don't wish to generate unnecessarily negative discussion). If you have any problems at all with my edits or discussions then raise them on the appropriate talk pages where the relevant exchange can be scrutinised in one place. I have not been uncivil to you. I have not been unreasonable to you, nor about any editorial matter you have commented upon. No doubt at some point in the future you will refer to this discussion as an example of how you have had to complain about my harassment previously. Well sorry, but I would much prefer to not engage at all in anything that is not relevant to contributing towards and improving the quality of WP content. And where I do, I think my comments can be publicly observed to be rational, relevant, reasonable and civil. There is surely better things to do so this is my final comment here unless an admin or someone else requires me to comment. If so, please place a notice on my talk page as I will not be following this discussion further. Zac Δ talk 15:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-compliant signature

No admin issue, only one user on the complaining side and this really needs to be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Signatures or on user talk, not here. -- talk • contribs ) 15:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Could someone please ask WP:TPO explicitly states that editing non-compliant signatures is permissible. It is unfortunate that Ohms law (talk · contribs) cannot simply be reasonable about this. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 11:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)He could be busy with stuff or asleep. It seems like you posted that at a time long after he stopped contributing for the day. Bringing it to ANI seems highly unnecessary and it should be noted that you and he have a history of extreme and vicious disagreement. Errr, also wasn't that message put there on his talk page only eight minutes prior? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 12:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, but he has edited since then and not replied, hence "ignored". ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 12:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Edit: with regard to the long after thing, the time shown on the contribs and the sigs are different, the rest still stands though. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 12:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC) I don't how to put this mildly, but this is completely unnecessary drama. Yes, WP:CUSTOMSIG advises not to use linebreaks (which I read as not to use them in the middle of your sig), but putting your signature as a whole on the next line is not in any way disruptive or malforming. In fact, I'm thinking of doing the same thing, just to make signatures easier to spot. I think you are in for quite a shock when LiquidThreads is eventually introduced; it places signatures on the next line by default! — Edokter (talk ) — 12:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC) I remove the line break manually when it's actually a problem, as well (when posting "support" or "oppose" votes, for example). — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 12:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC) If the consensus here is that line-breaks in signatures are acceptable, then the guideline needs to be amended. If not, then Ohms' sig needs to be amended. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 12:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC) As the page header says, Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page. You gave the user 8 minutes time to respond before deciding that they "simply can't be reasonable about this" and taking them to the admin noticeboard? Jafeluv (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Since they've edited numerous times since I left the message, including two completely illegitimate reverts of my edits, yes, I've concluded that they're not planning to engage with me. You may disagree, however. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle ─╢ 12:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC) You never wait to respond to messages from people? Maybe he felt like he could respond in an hour or two, or even fifteen minutes from your post. Eight minutes is being very demanding. You know how we have WP:AGF in mind, I think that taking your history with him into account with the eight minutes, something smells rather rotten here. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 12:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Looking at the reverts, it looks like they are related to this and were him reverting your removals of the <br> tags which you removed as a result of misinterpreting the rule. Again, seems to cast this in a rather bad light. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 12:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC) I do disagree. Expecting someone to respond in eight minutes (which would include noticing your message, reading it and writing a response) is completely unreasonable. It's not like this is an urgent matter or anything. Jafeluv (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Fine; I'm a bastard. Whatever. Now that he is aware, and has replied in this thread, and has twice resisted changes to the signature quite contrary to WP:TPO, the sig still violates the guideline. Which is going to be changed – sig or guideline? ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament ─╢ 12:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Why should either be changed? Also, are you sure that you yourself did not violate WP:TPO? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 12:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Why should either be changed? You mean you guidelines for signatures, you may edit the signature," I'm pretty sure, yeah. But thanks for your concern. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat ─╢ 12:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Previous comment got lost thanks to the net. I think it has been pretty well-established that his sig does not in fact violate the guideline as it is simply a break putting his sig on another line rather than something making a two-line sig. As it doesn't violate the guideline, I would say it is itself a violation of WP:TPO, but an accidental one as you may have misinterpreted the guidelines itself. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 13:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Are the signature guidelines "rules", or merely "suggestions"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC) The top of the page says: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Jafeluv (talk) 12:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC) To comment on the signature issue, I don't see how Ohms law's signature is disruptive in any way. I don't think admin action is warranted here. Jafeluv (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC) ...so why does the guideline say that it is disruptive? ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate ─╢ 13:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC) It doesn't say it is disruptive; it says it may disrupt the layout of surrounding text. Quite a difference. — Edokter (talk) — 13:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC) So what makes this particular signature with a line-break different from the sort envisaged by WP:SIG which might cause disruption with a line-break? ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman ─╢ 13:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Signatures that take up multiple lines I would think.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 13:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Meh, its just a line break. Not like we're dealing with Docu's "I can't hit a tilde 4 times" or KoshVorlon's gargantuan garishness. Tarc (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC) The guideline says, "Your signature should not blink, scroll, or otherwise inconvenience or annoy other editors." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC) If that is the rule then I would like to open a complaint against TreasuryTag. Specifcally his the colors wrapping his signature are different every time, and the pointed to is different every time. This causes me to be annoyed when I look for a specific color or pattern. Perhaps this is pointy, but it does make for an interesting comparison. Hasteur (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC) While I personally don't like it, I have a non-breaking-space before my signature so that it never shows up by itself on a new line, I don't see this as disruptive, and think this is a classic example of were the principle of the rules is more important than the letter. WP:SIG is a set of guidelines to avoid disruptive signatures, it is not a hard-set list of rules that leave no wiggle room. Personally, I see nothing disruptive about Ohms law's signature. Xeworlebi (talk ) 13:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC) As much as I'd very much rather that all but the most absolutely basic sig formatting were banned on paid of defenestration, a line break? Seriously? You know that there are plenty of editors who habitually add line breaks before their sigs manually when placing them? A <br /> even has the advantage that it doesn't break list formatting. This thread reads exactly like a petty attempt at oneupmanship based on some perceived slight elsewhere, and TT should know better than that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC) To TreasuryTag: Why are we at AN/I? You posted a request on his talk page ([27]) and then immediately jumped to AN/I. Your initial AN/I post came just eight minutes after your initial request on Ohm's talk page, which suggests that you were drafting your complaint pretty much simultaneously with your post to his talk page. Instead of making a good-faith effort to engage with this editor, you decided to edit war on the Village Pump over a line break that – while not technically compliant with the signature guideline – represented a pretty minor harm to the project as a whole. Bickering over trivial formatting issues is unlikely to be a priority for most Wikipedians, and for something like a (single) line break in a signature that has been ignored for at least a year it's basic common sense to give someone at least a day or two to respond. Your needless and inflammatory zero-to-AN/I-in-ten-minutes escalation has made this issue dramatically more difficult to resolve. I would strongly support any administrator who moved to block you if you should abuse AN/I for frivolous requests like this one in the future. Further, Hasteur makes a rather compelling point above about glass-house dwellers and the throwing of stones. The fact that your signature changes color each time it appears makes it more difficult to recognize as belonging to a single editor. An argument could readily be made that your attention-grabbing but inconsistent signature style falls afoul of our signature guidelines as well—but I note that no editor here has taken it upon themselves to edit war with you over it. To Ohm's Law: TreasuryTag has gone about this in the most unpleasant and least constructive way possible, and I won't blame you for not wanting to hear anything else about it. Nevertheless, I will mention that there is some reasoning behind the guideline, and I would ask that you take it into account. I hope that you might voluntarily bring your signature in line with the guideline's best practices if provided with a reasonable explanation and polite request. Broadly speaking, putting your signature on a new line is discouraged for two principle reasons. First is a matter of consistency and ease of use. Everyone else signs at the end of their comments, on the same line as the body text. Other Wikipedians are conditioned to find a signature in a particular location, and it's mildly disconcerting and distracting to see what appears to be an unsigned remark followed by a floating signature. It's not egregiously difficult to parse threaded discussions containing your sig and figure out who said what, but it does slow down readers (most of us) who aren't used to seeing comments signed that way. The second reason is that it does take up a bit more space on the screen. Many Wikipedians are probably editing using computers with large, high-resolution displays. An extra line of text is no big deal, since we hardly ever have to scroll down anyway. Some editors are using older, lower-resolution hardware, tablets, netbooks, or mobile devices. These editors don't enjoy the luxury of nearly-unlimited screen real estate. It becomes a genuine inconvenience for them if a participant in a threaded discussion is needlessly adding an extra line to each comment he posts. (It gets worse if other editors see that you're doing it, and start doing it themselves.) So what do you say? Did civility and reason triumph where bluster and rote recitation of rules failed? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC) If it's really an issue I'm certainly willing to listen and adjust, if needed. It doesn't seem to be an issue though, considering the fact that I've used this signature litterally for years now (since late 2007). Also, as I said above, where the line break actually gets in the way I make it a point to remove it (for example: added supoprt, removed break). Honestly, I wish that more people would put their signatures on their own (single) line because it allows for easier identification of who's saying what on talk pages, but... *shrug* This doesn't seem like the best place to be discussing normal signature practices, regardless. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 14:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Well, I for one am in complete agreement. Placing one's signature on their own line should not be disallowed. You may want to chime in at Wikipedia talk:Signatures#Linebreaks. — Edokter (talk) — 15:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC) To be clear, I'm not saying it's a disaster either way, but for the reasons I've outlined, I think it's most courteous to your fellow editors to take out the line break. It will be an improvement for some of them, and it comes at no cost to you. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Support Ohms law - I don't buy that the signature "lengthening pages needlessly" is disruptive in any way. I also don't agree that the guideline needs to be amended to somehow bring the letter of the rule in line with every possible case. We're not about letters of rules here, we're about their spirits. We should all practice that like we mean it. I kind of like the idea of a line break for the signature, and may start using it myself, hmm.... The extra whitespace might even improve readability, on a cluttered talk page such as this. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC) *facepalm* We're never going to get the toothpaste back in the tube on this one, are we? Aaron Brenneman (talk ) 15:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC) I don't buy that the original complaint has anything to do with a signature in the first place. --64.85.216.235 (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, but an IP with their only edit being a groundless allegation of bad faith doesn't really have a leg to stand on... ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 20:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC) I agree completely with TT that OL's signature currently contravenes WP:SIG; but I also completely agree with the sentiment above that OL's signature is not disruptive. Conclusion? Change WP:SIG, not the signature itself. No admin intervention required. GiantSnowman 15:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Proud Serbian Chetnik

Resolved

 – Blocked by

talk • contribs

) 06:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki

)

As of 13:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC), user was warned of discretionary sanctions per

WP:UP#POLEMIC,[29] but I think this user requires more than a user page blanking. Would an administrator please review his contribs for the last 48 hours or so as well as my blanking to determine the next step? Thanks. Viriditas (talk

) 12:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The jingoism is one thing (I have a bias against Serbs though, I will not lie), and can be disruptive, but the obvious homophobia in some of his contribs is a whole nother entirely (real homophobia is something that angers me greatly). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 12:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I ran into this user's editing pattern a few days ago. I've looked into his editing history and I've seen his user page. He is an openly POV-pushing Serb nationalist editor and I have no doubt that his only purpose here is soapboxing in articles related to Kosovo War and Greater Serbia, plus assorted vandalism in which he inserts dubious ethnicity claims about some Croatian people. I've went through all of his contribs and left an analysis in his talk page [30] in reply to his earlier query in which he asked why did I rollback his edits to Operation Storm. I'm not an admin myself so my opinion may be of less value here but I see no hope for this guy. His user page alone should warrant some sanctions. Timbouctou (talk) 12:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Only a few recent edits appear to be in the area of the sanction warning. Though there are other POV issues such as the homophobia that should be addressed with the editor. I can try but not now. In any case, I don't think it's quite as bad as the above suggests, but some post warning diffs might be helpful. I wouldn't be inclined to take admin action at this point as he does appear to be willing to communicate and ask questions, albeit a bit brashly. User:Timbouctou, your opinion here is welcome and is not less valuable just because you don't have admin tools. They do not make admins of a higher class or able to discuss things that others can't. This page only has "Administrators'" in the name because it's a place to get the attention of Admins.--
  talk • contribs
  ) 12:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at the edits too. About this Fluffer/LGBT issue, I am not well-placed to comment!! The Balkan-related topics see severe POV-pushing which stretch from hyper-irredentism of the Serbian nation to implying that various other persons from the former Yugoslavia are Serb. I may also say that this is without basis as I have never heard singer Severina mention these things in interview. From another angle, yes he seems to be communicating and has so far not reverted the edits where his contributions were cancelled. I can't say I've spotted anything that amounts to stalking (if someone could point this out) but my impression is that this is a relatively young person who may be new to the site. A fair disciplinary procedure will be best - from Level one to four and if the behaviour persists, block him a short time; if no reform - block him indef. This is my view. Evlekis (Евлекис) 13:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec with below) I think template warnings with someone who has already been engaged in communications and even asked what the warning about the ARBCOM case meant, could have a negative effect and would become a self-fulfilling prophecy to a block. A block can't be used as discipline, they aren't punishment, they are to protect the project. If he's not reverting the reverts, so he is effectively following a 0RR or at least a 1RR, then we shouldn't even be discussing a block, at least not until we are sure he won't stop posting highly POV changes. We need to educate him in what POV means and what NPOV means and try to welcome him to make NPOV edits, notwithstanding his rather rough start. If he doesn't like our style, maybe he won't stick around but maybe, just maybe, he'll try to actually discuss his positions and bring in some valuable editing (or identify some of the opposite POV that someone not from the region wouldn't even see).--

talk • contribs

) 13:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Can I also add that I do not believe this user to be in any way connected to User:Chetnik Serb despite the names. The latter is an incarnation of User:Sinbad Barron and it would appear strange if this were the case here too as the jingoism is for the opposite parties. Sinbad Barron's accounts all generate Serbophobic remarks. Evlekis (Евлекис) 13:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• I think it's unlikely that such a pattern of pov-pushing edits is the start of a productive career as a net positive to wikipedia, but I'm willing to give this new editor a second chance (and a firm reminder of what
  WP:NPOV is for). Of course, if pov-pushing subsequently resumes then block, ban, whatever - persistent civil pov-pushers are one of the biggest threats to wikipedia. bobrayner (talk
  ) 13:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

If I may add one more remark. I generally second Bobrayner and Doug. It appears this is not a serial vandal and definitely not every edit constitutes disruption. There has been some copy-editing. Discipline will do the trick for certain. My concern however is something else, the user has been accused of stalking and that is wholly unacceptable. I need to see where this has happened as I would like to judge it better for myself. Although Wikipedia protects anonymity, it can still be harassing for an indvidual if he has been posted ill-founded and personal remarks or personal threats. So editing nature, fine, this can be fixed but the stalking must be stopped forthwith. Evlekis (Евлекис) 15:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Evlekis, the user was "accused" of stalking (on Wikipedia this is called

WP:COMPETENCE necessary to edit to Wikipedia and/or appears to be too immature to understand it. Viriditas (talk

) 23:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I know the do's and don'ts and I'm sorry if I made some bad edits. I'll try harder in future not to.

talk

) 23:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disbelieve that claim, given that 3 minutes after you made it, you left this message on a user's page (note to others: read the context for the discussion for clarification). I didn't look into the Balkans issue, but the conversation on Anna Frodesiak's talk page sure doesn't look like one of a good faith contributor. Either you're just a troll (maybe, maybe not), or, alternatively, you're just not fit for the culture here--on Wikipedia, we require that people edit neutrally, not attempt to apply their own biases and prejudices to articles. There's nothing really wrong with that--the Internet's a big place, and there are plenty of places where they welcome posting and editing from a specific worldview. This just isn't one of them. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me????? We were talking about

talk

) 23:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I was the person who grabbed at the word "troll". And grab it, I did. Perhaps it was not appropriate but it seems to me actually to be the "least worst" interpretation of what is developing on that talk page. The image in question is, in any event and in my opinion, not particularly likely to cause offence when compared to plenty of others used elsewhere. The reaction is extreme even in presumed ignorance of the "not censored" policy. In any event, and with no particular knowledge or opinion regarding the matters that have been raised there, it seems likely that some sort of culture clashing is going on generally. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but here we work as a community and that particular discussion is not helpful to the community. It was also not merely initiated by PSC but has been continued by that contributor when, perhaps, the best course of action would have been to simply drop it. I am somewhat concerned about the attitude issue and whilst cultural issues are inevitable there seems to me no reasonable basis for the diff linked to by Qwryxian. I should declare an interest: myself, Q and Anna Frodesiak have had some fairly substantial dealings of late regarding a now-banned editor, but that situation was not remotely similar to this. - Sitush (talk) 23:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

(I've gotta get off AN/I, dammit. This place just seems to suck you in... argh) Just skimmed through all of the above, and looked at Anna's talk page. The whole pointed questioning of someone else's sexuality is not only disturbing, but is something that I find to be rather offensive. I tend to agree with the "not fit for the culture here" train of thought. Just glancing over this user's contribs real quick, it seems as though he's causing us (much) more time and effort then he's adding to the encyclopedia. There seems to be hardly any mainspace editing, and the edits that have been made seem to be predominantly non-neutral. With all of that, I'd say it's about time to work up a community ban proposal.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Since you like consencus.
  talk
  ) 00:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Can we get an immediate block on this account? In apparent acts of revenge, he is now vandalizing (blanking of content) Viriditas' user page:

• "that is not exactly right is it? How do you like it?"
• Undid revision 438325979 by Viriditas (talk))

He's also harrassing Viriditas by inserting a picture of George W Bush on Viriditas (whom I assume Viriditas is not a fan):[38][39] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I tampered with it that's all. He or she has blanked or daubed accross mine the whole of the last 24 hours. Why not block him/her?

talk

) 00:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Edits like this are not an encouraging sign at all. And this is just incompetent. "Sporting her nice legs"? Groan. Doc talk 00:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

This edsitor is now looking for pages which I have edited, and reverting my most recent edit, even if that was some days ago and others have edited since: [40], [41]. RolandR (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• (
  User talk:Proud Serbian Chetnik#Blocked for more. —GFOLEY FOUR!
  —

Great unblock request - "My remakrs and edits will now be ALL Anti-Serb, I promise." From a proud Serb to an anti-Serb within seconds. Doc talk 01:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

He also writes "I stopped editwarring on

Gay Pride a long time ago" -- having made two reverts on the article within the previous forty minutes. RolandR (talk

) 01:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

There may be a sock/meat involved - see this, and note the previous contributions of CHAK 001. The timing is fortuitous ... - Sitush (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

This looks as though it may be another sock of Sinbad Barron. See Tex with X Ray Spex, and particularly this unblock request. RolandR (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Community Ban

I came across this thread this morning I thought that this might result in some nasty edit wars, incivility and lots of disruption. And now as I check up on it at night it has already gotten worse! much worse!! and with speed. This is an disruption only account and I suggest a community ban. Also I suggest a checkuser on User:Tex with X Ray Spex, User:Proud Serbian Chetnik and User:Sinbad Barron because these two edits are just harebrained stupidly obvious by the same person: [42] and [43]. noclador (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Well what a shocker!!! It all happens when you're fast asleep in the night!!!! It was on my mind all day yesterday, a Serb jingoist who preached irredentism and yet he brandished a photograph of Slobodan Milošević on his user page and what's more, hailed him "the greatest leader". Normally the Sinbad litter is spotted very quickly as there are two of us that know all the tell-tale signs, I being one and

Draža Mihajlović and Momčilo Đujić to posters praising the Serb hooliganism in Italy in 2010, but nowhere is there anything devoted to Milošević. Some months ago, I asked the man selling the items (in Belgrade) as he stood there in his dark beard, decked out in black, if he would sell anything of Milošević' to which he replied, "I wouldn't urinate on a picture of his face". This in turn is consistent with Đujić revoking Vojislav Šešelj's honourary award after the latter joint forces with Milošević in the 1990s. So Milošević may have had his "hands in a few pies" in the day but linking him to traditional nationalism is wholly inaccurate. The revelation that Proud Serbian Chetnik was Sinbad Barron solves the puzzle. Sorry I could not blow the whistle earlier. Evlekis

(Евлекис) 07:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Support Socking and disruption = ban. JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting ... I was just thinking this pattern of jokey-trolling reminded me of a couple of "editors" Chacha gurl B and Hielman that I SPIed back in March, who turned out to be socks not only of each other but of somebody called Wikibrah. Sharktopus ^talk 01:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sinbad Barron now open. noclador (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support a community ban. Yesterday, in an AGF mood, I considered offering mentorship - I dodged a bullet on that one... bobrayner (talk) 11:41, 8 July 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.

Extreme personal attack

Resolved

 – IP blocked by OrangeMike. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Please block 75.168.243.94 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) for this remark. I realize you can't indef an IP, but please do what you can. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Can't get much more anti-Semitic (which actually does annoy me too for the reasons he sort of stated, though I acknowledge that most people only apply it to us Jews) than dropping the k-word. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked by

talk · contribs) for 48 hours for severe harassment. Mark this as resolved? elektrikSHOOS (talk

) 20:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

As the recipient of the attack, I just wanted to pop in here to thank you all for taking care of this. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• The material is removed from the history. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

User:RoadHouse -- general disruption, using IPs to avoid scrutiny, NFCC violations

User:OhNoitsJamie. Since coming off that block, if not before, RoadHouse has been using IP accounts like User:96.235.156.29, User:173.61.170.148, and User:173.72.91.154 in an attempt to avoid scrutiny, using the RoadHouse account only when editing semiprotected pages, uploading images, or otherwise editing in ways not allowed for IP users. RoadHouse's edits are rarely constructive, and then only minimally so; they mostly chop articles into smaller and smaller sections, sometimes only one sentence long, inexplicably rearranging sections in ways which separate discussions of related matters. They also rearrange sections to place more emphasis on embarassing/uncomplimentary matters. Despite objections from multiple users (User:Nymf and I seem to bump heads with them the most), the editing practices are unchanged. RoadHouse lately has been larding articles with minimally relevant free images, to the point of clear overillustration, despite, again, objections from several users. Worse, the editor disregards NFCC limits and edit wars to reinsert material which fails NFCC; note, for example, repeated attempts from different accounts to insert a Playboy cover in the Charisma Carpenter article "To show what the cover looked like."[45] RoadHouse virtually never uses edit summaries (itself a disruptive practice, given the nature of their edits). In response to some snarling from them on my talk page, I've attempted to dialog with them, to no effect whatsoever.[46] [47]

Today breaks the bank. Aside from the usual disruptive editing, RoadHouse, via IPs, decided to enhance the section of the

Mr. T..[48] Amusing, yes, especially on April 1, but hardly constructive editing. They then decided to memorialize their favorite Playboy cover, set for deletion as unused non-free, by creating a gallery for it on their userpage.[49] Then they added a phony free-use licensing tag to the image page, identifying it as their own work.[50] Then they reverted User:Tabercil's modification of the image itself, restoring a larger-size, higher-res copy of the image.[51]

.
A three-day block didn't work. A week-long block didn't work. It's time for this character to take a long vacation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The user's obstinate stance regarding multiple warnings was what lead me to block. Given this new information and the continuing unwillingness to abide be Wikipedia policy, I support a longer block. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

One question: has anyone done a formal CheckUser on his account to verify that he is indeed using IPs to edit? If we can prove that, then we have just cause to give him a permanent leave of absense... Tabercil (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• I've reverted the changes to the file; it's now a day away from being speedied. Agree with Tabercil; if you can prove, via checkuser or more evidence, that the IP's are him, it would be easy to justify an indef block. But it isn't clear to me how you know that. I might be willing to block even if we don't consider the IP edits, but I have to go and can't review his contribs enough to be confident that the account's edits alone justify a long/indef block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  •  Confirmed T'is he, indeed. — Coren ^(talk) 03:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks Coren. RoadHouse blocked indefinitely. Going forward, IP's can now be blocked for block evasion if he uses them again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks from me as well. I'd just put together an more detailed comparison, which now isn't necessary, in the unlikely event anyone's interested. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

detailed comparison by HW
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The evidence is mainly behavioral. First of all, since his last block expired, the RoadHouse account is used exclusively (maybe almost exclusively) to edit semi-protected pages and perform other tasks that IP editors aren't allowed to. This suggests that the person behind the account is editing from an IP whenever possible. RoadHouse came off their last block June 22 20:16. User:96.235.156.29 begins editing June 22 20:20, and continues until June 24 20:17. All of RoadHouse's edits in this two-day period come during brief gaps in the IP's contribution list. In order -- RoadHouse makes three edits on June 22, from 21:44 - 21:55. The IP stops editing at 21:17 and resumes at 22:02. RoadHouse makes four edits later that day, from 23:33 - 23:47; the IP breaks at 23:15 and resumes at 23:53. On June 23, RoadHouse edits from 4:21-4:32. The IP breaks at 4:15 and makes a single edit at 4:44. RoadHouse edits at 4:53 and 4:56. The IP edits from 5:04 - 5:18. RoadHouse edits from 5:21 - 5:32. The IP resumes at 5:39. Later on June 23, RoadHouse edits at 19:58 and 20:00. The IP breaks at 19:44 and resumes from 20:10 - 20:17, then edits on-and-off until June 24 at 2:22. RoadHouse edits from 2:34 - 2:41; the IP resumes from 2:56 - 3:09. RoadHouse edits from 3:17 - 3:29; the IP resumes at 3:53. Later in the day, the IP breaks from editing at 19:37. RoadHouse edits from 19:49 - 19:51, and the IP resumes at 20:04. Such a pattern might be coincidence, but it's hard to see one extending over several days, and it's hard to see any other reason why, after coming off his block, RoadHouse stopped editing pages that weren't semi-protected. The most logical explanation is that RoadHouse, to avoid further scrutiny, uses their account only for tasks he can't carry out as an IP. There are strong similarities in the contribution history. Virtually all the edits are made to celebrity biographies. Virtually all the edits are made without edit summaries. Virtually all of the edits (except those involving images) do not make substantive changes to the articles, but rearrange blocks of text, modify headers, or insert new headers to create smaller sections. The first IP stopped editing June 24 20:17. User:173.61.170.148 begins editing June 24:21:43. and geolocates to the same location. The pattern continues, with RoadHouse editing semiprotected articles during short gaps in the IP's contribution history. This IP's contributions end June 27 04:42. User:173.72.81.117 picks up June 27 18:17, same geolocation data. Same editing patterns, with an additional linkage: the IP attempts to correct the defective NFCC rationale on RoadHouse's upload of the Charisma Carpenter Playboy cover [52]. This IP stops editing July 2 06:25. User:173.72.91.154 (no surprise, same geolocation) picks up July 3 22:12. RoadHouse did not edit during the 40-hour gap between the IPs, but resumed one hour after this IP began editing, (unsurprisingly) during a brief gap in the IP's editing. Between the similarity in the actual edits and the synchronization of the edit histories, I don't think there's any reasonable explanation other than one user (already blocked once for socking) employing multiple IPs and at least one named account, in order to avoid further scrutiny. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Aaron Brenneman

I think it's best if we just collapse this. Nothing's being accomplished except degeneration of the discussion into a place we don't need to go to. All parties are reminded of N419BH 06:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Aaron Brenneman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs ) I consider it a personal attack - Wow, aren't you the rude one? Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?" Allegations of kissing my mother are serious indeed and without need at all - the user commenting is an administrator, that is not the way administrators should be commenting about users. Off2riorob (talk ) 04:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC) ?????? Spartaz Humbug! 04:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Aaron Bannerman uncivil comments, just because one or more editors make an uncivil comments doesn't mean that he should and the fact that he is an Admin, he should know better. Bidgee (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC) User says - "If you think that I should not continue to be an admin, simply ask me to step down. Get five other editors in good standing (which I interpret very very broadly) to also say I should step down and it's done." support - Off2riorob (talk ) 04:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Another example: having been a total bastard from his talk page ΔT The only constant 04:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC) I anm not sure this user needs the tools, they are not/have never used them at all - diff - Off2riorob (talk ) 04:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC) And by the way, you made the wrong search. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC) I don't like to bring up the past however he did incorrectly blocked me for edit warring (for only 2 reverts), but should uncivil comments mean he should lose the tools, I'm not so sure. Bidgee (talk) 05:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC) This isn't about his past actions, and anyway you don't have to make more than two reverts to edit war. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC) I think you've miss understood what I'm stating, which is that I have past history however I don't believe that uncivil comments alone should mean that he loses his tools. Fact is Admin's can't block users who have done less then three reverts unless they have edit warred on the page in the past or they have sanctions put on them, sadly some Admins abuse the WP:EW (which is linked within WP:BP) states otherwise. Bidgee (talk ) 05:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Where in policy does it state that admins can't block users who've made less than 3 reverts? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC) As what I've stated, some Admin's miss use/abuse the WP:BP even though the policy states 3RR or if there are restrictions, so the block for anything less then 3RR is unsupported by policy (unless commmunity or arbcom restrictions are inplace). Bidgee (talk) 05:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC) That something isn't stated in policy doesn't mean it cannot be done. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC) In fact you can't block anyone for something that is not stated in the policy. The fact is the block he done was punitive (a breach of the WP:BP) not preventative (since two others were edit warring), the lone editor who kept adding the content had breached the 3RR yet Adam didn't block them? Bidgee (talk) 05:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Do I kiss my mother with that mouth - is the community happy with administrators saying such things to users? Off2riorob (talk ) 04:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC) It's an unfortunate outburst from Aaron but this is nowhere near what admins get recalled or desysopped for. Slap on the wrist with a "don't do it again", really. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC) That's actually a very common expression where I'm from and while it is a bit snarky it just means that the person it is directed to has said something dirty or nasty. See Wiktionary for instance. I suggest taking a breather here for a second. I doubt Aaron meant to be as offensive as you perceive his comments to be.Griswaldo (talk) 05:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC) For context, that which came immediately before the mouth comment was: Aaron - I was surprised you are an administrator - I was looking at your contributions - have you discovered the main issue - Wikipedia articles - ? What do you want with me , please feel free to spit it straight out? Off2riorob (talk ) 02:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC) I apologise for being thick as two planks here, but I have no idea what this comment means. Can you say that again a different way, please? - Aaron Brenneman (talk ) 03:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk ) 03:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC) In totality, Rob bordering on taunting, Aaron responding mildly uncivilly, and a pair of trouts should just about do it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC) The user has never even contributed with the tools. The user is not even contributing to article improvement here, and that is what this project is all about. The admins attack on me and my mother is indefensible. Off2riorob (talk ) 05:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, he has, and is a long-standing admin since 2006. You're overreacting, Rob. Cool down. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Fuck off with your pair of trouts - Aarons mother is a fucker Off2riorob (talk ) 05:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Rob, you're not helping yourself here. It wasn't a personal attack, as Griswaldo points out above. It's a figure of speech. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Fuck your mother too. Off2riorob (talk ) Bordering? It's pretty outright. I had assumed his post here was a bad joke. Especially since, if you want to look at what he said after being baited, the kiss line wasn't really the worst part. And none of it compares to Off2riorob's comments here. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 05:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC) I'm worried his account has been hijacked or that there is something serious going on with him. This is really out of control. I tried to leave him a message on his talk page, but he erased it and told me the same about my mother. Any ideas?Griswaldo (talk) 05:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Seems like any other outburst by a frustrated user. He'll get over it, eventually. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Where I come from, "Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?" is not an attack on the person it's directed to, nor in any way on that person's mother. It's a somewhat jocular way of calling someone out for using dirty language. The whole thrust of the expression is that the person's mother is deserving of respect, and that the person using foul language should speak in a way befitting the dignity of their upright mother. In other words: Keep your mouth clean enough that you can (in a chaste and filial way) kiss your mother without dirtying her cheek. I have never imagined seeing that expression construed as an attack on anyone's mother; this is a lost-in-translation problem. It's often the case that such idiomatic expressions are misunderstood in an online environment. That's a good reason to be careful using them. In the context, I think it was a pretty measured response to a rather unpleasant bit of venom from Off2riorob. Rob, if you don't barge onto people's talk pages demanding that they justify their existence, you'll probably avoid all sorts of unpleasantness. How has the encyclopedia been improved by this episode? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Agree with GTBacchus, it's simple a jocular figure of speech, an since figures of speech are not always shared between cultures, it's certainly subject to misinterpretation. However, Off2riorob's two responses above "Aaron's mother is a fucker" and "Fuck your mother too" are not subject to misinterpretation. Would an uninvolved admin please issue a block for these? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Obviously I can't speak for Aaron or Griswaldo, to whom Rob made similar comments, but it's obvious Rob's frustrated at the moment, and I don't see how a block would help things here. I'm willing to overlook his personal attack against me. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Same here. No such action on my behalf please.Griswaldo (talk) 05:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC) If people got that offended by comments like that where I went to middle school, they'd have PTSD; we certainly did use it to taunt people, but in the way GTBacchus is describing, not how Off2riorob took it. It's just frustration; come back when Aaron says something worth responding to. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC) I'm still thinking something strange is going on here, stranger than "a frustrated user," but maybe I'm wrong.Griswaldo (talk) 05:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Will it help at all if I apologise for the unintended fillial slight, and even (as an extension of an olive branch) ask if there is an article that Off2 thinks could use some improvement for me to work on, penance if you like? I'm still pretty firm on that we're allowed to blow off a little steam on our own talk page, by the way, and am not terribly sorry for any of the rest of what I said. But I wouldn't support a block, who's really been hurt here, other than Off2's reputation a bit. - Aaron Brenneman (talk ) 05:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Given that, I withdraw my suggestion for a block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Whatever the reason for the outbursts I think you should wait to say anything to him because I can't imagine an answer at this stage that doesn't involved mothers and fornication. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC) When I first saw Brenneman's comment, my initial reaction was, "Where in the murky depths of a twisted mind did that come from?" It does indeed sound like a euphemism for some kind of incestuous behavior - and despite rationalizations from other editors, I'm not convinced that it isn't. An admin shouldn't be talking that way. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Bugs, I hope that you and I have known each other long enough that you will take my assurance: it's just a figure of speech, there's no incestuous overtones to it. I know that it was used in a classic movie, but I can't recall which one. If I remember, I'll let you know. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Mike Meyers says in in Wayne's World, in the scene where he and Dana Carvey argue while the airplane flies overhead. I know it goes back further than that, though. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Please do not stir this pot unnecessarily.Griswaldo (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Please do not rationalize inappropriate behavior from an admin. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)I'm sorry but whether it is a "figure of speech" or not, such comments should never be made since to me it seemed like a uncivil comment (after Off2riorob had also made a uncivil comment). I try and keep my "figures of speech" to a minimum since in some cultures see it as an attack and fair call for them too. Bidgee (talk) 05:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)Wiktionary, Slang dictionary. "Incestuous behavior"? I'm pretty sure I remember Groucho Marx using this expression; I'll have to dig to find that. Bugs, you know about Groucho, right? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC) It was used in a fucking Spongebob episode; I remember seeing it when I was 10. It was obvious what it meant. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob's comments, (1): "Fuck off with your pair of trouts - Aarons mother is a fucker" (2): "Fuck your mother too." (3): "fuck you and your mother", seem to be consistent with Off2riorob's comments in other places, so I don't think that account has been compromised. He has made uncivil comments at RfC/U Cirt with a similar tone: "better if the user didn't comment at all. His comment is worthless, I think it was meant to disrupt. deliberately disruptive - there is nothing else to explain it... what a disgusting comment." Also, in edit-warring on an article consistent with his previously held positions, he made accusations of meatpuppetry with no evidence. Left unchecked, Off2riorob's incivility could get worse. talk ) 05:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Those comments aren't remotely comparable. I can't believe you are here trying to gain some political traction out of this mess. Shameless. I'm half of a mind to say some nasty things myself. No one who was insulted here, myself included, thinks this is worth pressing. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Personal attacks create a hostile atmosphere and talk ) 05:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Excuse me? Why are you here? You're suggesting that two unrelated things are related so that in that other venue whatever Rob says and whoever agrees with him will look bad. As I said it's just deplorable what you're doing. Go away.Griswaldo (talk) 05:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) Quigley, it's true what you say about personal attacks creating a hostile atmosphere. It's not clear that the best response to attacks is to quote behavior policies, because doing that doesn't create the friendliest atmosphere, either. The best response to a personal attack is to realize that it's coming from a frustrated human being, and try to connect with them and make it clear that you have no malice towards them, and that you are willing to respect them even when they don't respect you. I mean... that works pretty well, sometimes. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC) No one comments about my mother, full stop. Anyone who does it can expect me to defend her. Off2riorob (talk ) 05:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Rob, that's entirely reasonable. She was never attacked in this situation, however, so your defense, while admirable, is not needed. Nobody has said anything negative about your mother, and I don't see why we ever would. Aaron used a very unfortunate idiomatic expression that did not carry across as intended. Nobody using that expression intends an attack against anyone's mother. Language can be a wonderful thing, but sometimes... whew! We all live and learn, right Aaron? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC) No one comments about my mother - full stop ever - no one should mention my mother at all - forget about it do not do it again ever. end of. Off2riorob (talk ) 06:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Thetruthnow2012 legal threat

Not a legal threat, just hyperbole (crying "Censorship!") and slow-motion edit-warring. No administrative action required. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Anyone want to block this tendentious editor for the legal threat he made in this edit summary [53]. He is mentioned in an above thread, but this is a different issue. I'm going to bed. --Daniel 07:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Does saying something was unlawfully done count as a legal threat? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 08:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC) I wouldn't have thought so. :) Saying that you're going to act on that might be, but otherwise it is just descriptive. And, in this case, very much incorrect. - Bilby (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC) I also question this as well. The user is just acting in an uncivil way. Island Monkey talk the talk 08:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Agree with the tendentious editor bit, but not a Mtking (talk ) 08:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Please refer to the above thread and intervene accordingly. — Yk3 talk ~ contrib 08:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment) Part of remedy to a WP:DRAMA.--Shirt58 (talk ) 09:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Not a legal threat, just hyperbole (crying "Censorship!") and slow-motion edit-warring plus silly personal attacks ("your feeling of insecurity"). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Agreed; also, I have been studying this user's contributions since getting involved with the thread at WP:DRN, but I have not seen anything that would count as an actual legal threat. Let's keep this discussion to the thread above. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

User:EEMIV

content dispute. WP:DR is thataway if need be. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User has shown persistent stubbornness and disruptive editing to the article Starship Enterprise. They have persistently chosen to place non-canon source above canon sources where a clear discrepancy exists between the two and have refused to allow attempts to acknowledge or reconcile the discrepancy. User persists in treating the article as their personal property and persistently reverts all edits to the article. TDiNardo (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Yeah baby! The boomerang is back on AN/I! Island Monkey talk the talk 09:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC) That's a lot of persistence.:) --Atlan (talk) 09:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Sahab

Resolved

 – User seems to have figured this out himself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Please move Sahab to Sahab (disambiguation). Thanks. In fact ( contact ) 10:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, NOT ! Please help. In fact ( contact ) 11:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You can edit redirect pages yourself. I've now pointed Sahab to Sahab (disambiguation); it would probably be better if Sahab (disambiguation) were moved to Sahab now. Do you want me to do that? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If a user searches "Sahab", he/she should be redirected to the disambiguation page. That's why I asked you to move

Sahab City) to Sahab (disambiguation). I hope I am clear now. By the way, I checked it again: Sahab still redirects to Sahab City. In fact ( contact )

11:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. It is fixed now. In fact ( contact ) 11:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

AnthonyTheGamer

No administrative action required. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This user's edits are questionable, I don't know if they are actionable but I sure would like a fresh pair of eyes. They only edit talkpages, not bad in and of itself, but the edits seem trolling to me. I removed one such troll from a user talkpage. I don't really know if this is a sock or what the game is, but I would like someone to have a look.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC) This (and the equally idiotic followup) warrant a warning, but I'd be surprised if this were anything other than a young kid based on editing history. It doesn't warrant administrative attention at this time. You should have taken this to the editor's talk page instead of immediately running off to Grand Central Drama with it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Grand Central Drama. Brilliant. That made my night, thanks! As to the rest, not sure what I can say to a troll/possible sock that's going to make any difference, not feed the WP:TROLL, and not use four letter words that get in my head when I see trolling, which wouldn't be good for me here. So I brought it down to Grand Central Drama to let the dramatis personae in residence take a look. You say it's clean, I'm good with that.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC) It's okay to assume good faith to the end even if you don't really believe it, rigtht? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow this guy is typing that I am a troll. Why would I want to troll on this website? I was just typing what the Webster's dictionary was reading but if you want to type that I am a troll and don't want my help. I will never help on this website again except for the powers and abilities of superman, I know when I am not welcomed. Incompetent. AnthonyTheGamer (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Omen1229's user page

User is stating a personal opinion in respect of linguistic origins. This is not proscribed.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello administrators, I would like to notify you that Hungarians are a semi-nomadic tribe who live in tents between savage circumstances. Personally, I am not interested in what opinions people have of the Hungarians if those are possibe to fit to the Wiki policy ,or if not, then if at least they abstain from extraditing those on Wikipedia. But, this user page inclines me to vomit. User:Omen1229 comes from Slovakia that lies in the neighborhood of Hungary, and according to my experience, Wikipedia attracts a lot of Slovak nationalist trolls who pamper a grudge towards Hungarians. For instance, in the past, there was a Slovak user User:Magyar nem ember who had the temerity to choose such user name as "Hungarians do not belong to the human race" because it means it in Hungarian.--Nmate (talk ) 12:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC) I suggest a decent dose of WP:AGF. It's possible that this is meant as a nationalistic jibe, but by no means certain. I'm more concerned about the user declaring a fondness for Jägermeister - now that is offensive to all of humanity and, according to the latest polls, to 86% of the sentient beings in the Local Group. --Stephan Schulz (talk ) 12:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC) I don't see where they suggest that Hungarians are currently nothing but a semi-nomadic tribe. Most 21st century civilizations historically have had nomadic backgrounds ... ( BWilkins ←track ) 12:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Hello I don´t see any racist in my user page. All sources are from wikipedia.org and I have not changed anything. This is your another personal attack. I am not racist! Please don´t insult me! Ethnic conflicts: "Debates over the origins of racism often suffer from a lack of clarity over the term. Many use the term "racism" to refer to more general phenomena, such as xenophobia and ethnocentrism, although scholars attempt to clearly distinguish those phenomena from racism as an ideology or from scientific racism, which has little to do with ordinary xenophobia." You wrote in Revision history of Lake Balaton a about name in Slovak language : based on what? No importance at all! Slovaks have never been lived in the neighborhood some articles about Lake Balaton in Hungarian language with Slovak name Blatenské jazero: http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balaton http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port%C3%A1l:Balaton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omen1229 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Given a user who lives in the neighborhood of Hungary, identfies himself as nationalist, expresses his allegiance to Pan-Slavism, and makes a template that he worries about the recent political situation in Hungary as can be seen on his user page. His contributions to Wikipedia is nothing more than reverting, due to his poor English ,and then the user makes comparsion to Hungaians to some wretch people living in tents in Asia, who are obliged to fish in order to maintain their needy subsistence, which refers to a catchphrase which is often used by nationalists in the neighborhood of Hungary that "Hungarians came from Asia, and they need to return to Asia". On Wikipedia, there was one another user who lives in Romania, which is also located in the neighborhood of Hungary. He was blocked for indefinite time for hated speech aimed at Hungarians [54], and he had a sockpuppet whose name was Asianbozgor. The word "bozgor" means people who has no motherland, so that the word Asianbozgor means people coming from Asia who has no motherland by which he also referred to the Hungarians.--Nmate (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC) And another personal attack. Jobbik. I am maybe blind, but I don´t see nowhere "Hungarians came from Asia, and they need to return to Asia" and I don´t know who is Asianbozgor. What are you talking about? My user page inclines you to vomit. Why? There are only pics with people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omen1229 (talk • contribs ) 14:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Spectator article

• Please discuss at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Nick Cohen

The following discussion 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.

---

I can't for the life of me remember where the best place to bring up those sorts of things are - I noticed this in the Spectator today alleging that wikipedia articles have been slanted. we might want to run our eyes over the articles mentioned to ensure that they represent a NPOV and comply with BLP. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

MedCab from 2007. The editor named in Cohen's article has edited neither Hari's article nor the talk page significantly since this time last year. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I've mentioned this at BLPN in relationship to his (

talk

) 12:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If you're talking about The American Spectator, keep in mind they probably consider Conservapedia to be too liberal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin burnout / talk page personal attacks

-

Closing this out of respect to a fellow editor. This is something that can be dealt with if and hopefully when he returns
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
- Please handle this with an abundance of caution and sympathy. However... - - Orangemarlin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is having a particularly bad day and is apparently burning out and either leaving or threatening to leave the project. In the process he's put a large, really nasty bunch of personal attacks up on editors he's disagreed with on his talk page. - - I don't want to make his exit (or bad day and recovery) any harder or take any action myself right now, but I urge uninvolved admins to review the situation and attempt to find a way to defuse it and downgrade or mitigate the personal attacks. - - Please try not to do anything that forces OM to actually leave if he were to change his mind overnight or tomorrow morning, handle him with human decency, etc. - - Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC) - MayI suggest that you read his note in full? Methinks you missed something... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC) - I've read it. I didn't want to prejudice whoever responds by trying to over-characterize it here. That the root cause is explained doesn't mean that it doesn't need attention. - Also thanks to Island Monkey who notified, while I was temporarily distracted on another problem. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC) - Taking over charge. And since I'm not an admin, COULD WE HAVE WIKI ADMIN IN AISLE 4??? Island Monkey talk the talk 07:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC) - I suggest that observers check OM's edits over the last 12 hours or so. Cla68 (talk) 08:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC) - - There seems to be something in the air - we've had a couple of meltdowns in the past day or two. Maybe we should give everyone a day off and just protect the entire site for 24 hours.   Will Beback  talk  08:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC) - - It appears that Orange is facing a life-or-death surgery, and he's channeling Mark Twain now. Perhaps God will show him more good faith than he has shown to God. Or at least we can hope. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC) - Not everybody believes in God, you know... Island Monkey talk the talk 08:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC) - True, but God might believe in those who don't. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC) - Sheesh, not the atheist-religious headbutting again. Let's not criticise each others' religious beliefs. Poor guy, emmm, I am no admin of course, but ,might I suggest a temp ban for his own protection so that he doesn't do bad things and then can come back later when all is well and return to being helpful? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 08:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC) - By that I mean a block not for the personal attacks, but out of kindness acknowledging that he is not himself and it is ,meant to help him out. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 08:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC) - Agreed. Some action is needed. Island Monkey talk the talk 08:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC) - OM appears to have gone to sleep or to do something more worthwile with his time than argue on Wikipedia. I don't think that a block would be useful at this point. He has made, as he said on my talk page, his swan song. Danger (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC) - We don't do blocks for self-protection, and we shouldn't do blocks for honesty. Fucking live with his statement. Nobody is forced to read it. If you don't like it, ignore it. It's not as if he has plastered it anywhere uninvolved people are likely to see it. I'm sick and tired of valuing skin-deep semi-civility (usually coupled with rules-Naziism, grudge-keeping, and a bit of back-stabbing) over honest discussion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC) - You're right. No need for a block. Cut the guy some slack. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC) - Petty bickering over the rants of a guy who fears he's dying. Reminds me of this clip, at the 7 minute mark.[55] FYI, the whole thing is worth watching. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC) - Pass me the popcorn... Island Monkey talk the talk 09:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC) - - The page is obviously full of personal attack. Why isn't it just blanked and left at that? DeCausa (talk) 09:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC) - How about waiting until Tuesday. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC) - What for? DeCausa (talk) 09:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC) - Because his surgery is on or before Monday. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC) - You mean he'll just restore it before then, so wait till he's incapacitated? I suppose that's a practical way forward with least fuss. DeCausa (talk) 09:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC) - Rethinking a bit, maybe it would be courteous to blank and fully protect. He can unprotect when he gets back, at which point he'll be in a much better frame of mind. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC) - Will it be the end of the world if we just ignore it for a few days? No one has to look at it. He may be dead by Monday. Sure, if I was attacked I'd be upset, but I'm unwilling to make his life worse than it is, especially as it may be short. I am tempted to fully protect it though - that would I know stop sympathy posts but also attacks on him. talk ) 10:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC) - A compromise option might be to partially blank and fully protect. That is, take out the parts attacking specific editors, which are fairly well delineated, and leave the rest of it which is commentary on Wikipedia more generally. -- talk ) 10:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC) - No censorship. Either blank it all or leave it as-is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC) - (edit conflict) Agreed. Blank his userpage and replace with {{user health inactive}}. If we have nothing on Tuesday, place a death notice on his userpage. Island Monkey talk the talk 10:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC) - Let's not get carried away. He might have to go through a convalescence and have no access to the internet. Unless someone will have firsthand knowledge? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC) -

- - I have removed all blatant personal attacks from that talk page per

Fram (talk

) 10:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

- -

The lack of sensitivity displayed by Georgewilliamherbert and Island Monkey is absolutely disgusting, and I am not sure it was necessary to remove the attacks, either, even though they were quite blatant and in part untrue. Basic human decency requires us to be extremely tolerant in such a situation. What would be totally correct under ordinary circumstances can turn into insensitive grave-dancing in such situations.

-

It's not as if OM had a history of show retirements (at least no recent ones – after his absence of two years [56] I may have forgotten something), and no indications of anything like

Münchausen syndrome. This is real. Hans Adler

11:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

-

I do not agree with the lack of sensitivity. Some sort of admin attention was needed. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 11:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

-

Some sort of admin attention is certainly needed to deal with Island Monkey, who clearly thinks that self-important bureaucratic whining (and making snide asides [57]) is more important than the life of a fellow contributor. Do you kick people when they are down for a living, or is it just a hobby? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

-

Not much need for admin attention for that, you can always start a Wikiquette Alert if you feel the need. I believe that the situation of a previous opposer of OrangeMarlin (wanting to have an RfC on him, see

Fram (talk

) 12:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

-

I'm much more concerned about people blatantly falsifying other users' statements. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

-

Yup, concur with Stephen. Fram, just drop it. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 12:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

-

Yeah, I so totaly falsified that, I even mentioned it at this ANI discussion, in my edit summary, and at the bottom of my edit in that very section. Truly terrible. At least I am not the one stating that the talk page of an editor who has a serious risk of losing his life has "entertainment value".

Fram (talk

) 12:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

-

Oh grow up and start

WP:AGF. Can't you comprehend that perhaps OM intended it to be entertaining? -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk

13:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

-

Could the lot of you simply stop embarassing yourselves, please? Reading the above left me ready to vomit.LeadSongDog come howl! 14:05, 8 July 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.

User:Wren Valmont

Repeatedly adding original research, redirects, and excessive fancruft to articles when asked not to. This possibly includes anonymous edits to "Good" and B-rated articles (using the IPs 74.179.133.31, 74.179.133.31, 72.147.51.157, etc, which share his habits and editing times). Refuses any discussion. Don't know if this will continue, but I wanted to alert someone in case it does. Thanks. -- James26 (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

User:SyedNaqvi90 faking numbers - again

SyedNaqvi90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is inserting made-up numbers into articles on Pakistan and its demographics: Pakistan, Religion in Pakistan, Demographics of Pakistan. He has repeatedly been told not to do so in the past, has been blocked for such behavior, and has been put under editing restrictions. I'd estimate about half his total edits are problematic, and at that quota all must be checked. I tire of doing so and would ask for a more permanent solution. Huon (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Very tiresome. I have blocked the user indefinitely pending some credible demonstration that he understands the problem and an indication of how he will fix it. Any admin is free to adjust or lift this block as and when they become satisfied that the user has acquired the necessary minimum level of Clue. Guy (Help!) 16:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I reviewed, and endorse the block.--SPhilbrickT 18:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Marine 69-71

Community consensus is that 1) a block of horsemeat and may have done so long ago. -- talk • contribs ) 20:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Unresolved  – it is brought to my attention that there is a pending suggestion by DGG to block the admin in question-- Doug.([[User talk:Doug|talk]] • contribs ) 13:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Resolved  – No further administrative action required. Requested relief is not possible here. RfC is the appropriate forum and is necessary to resolve the issues. ScottyBerg now has a second certifier, nothing else we can do here but continue to talk about what needs to happen elsewhere. -- talk • contribs ) 06:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC) See User:causa sui's excellent summation, below. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. I reported this user for canvassing, and also mentioned possible abuse of administrator tools here at the Administrators Noticeboard. An editor there points out that since an administrator is involved, it should be reported here. To avoid duplication, might this post suffice, so that administrators could review the situation at AN? Or, in the alternative, can the topic be moved to ANI? My apologies if I went to the wrong forum, but I don't have much experience with this type of situation. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC) In case he didn't know, I have notified User:Marine 69-71 - Off2riorob (talk ) 17:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Thanks. By the way, I'm troubled by the "Wall of Dishonor" appearing on one of this administrator's user pages: a list of Wikipedians he wants dead.[59] I mentioned this in the AN topic but I wanted to highlight it here, since one of them has my initial "S." Is it appropriate conduct for an administrator to keep a "death list" on one of his user pages? That, combined with canvassing and abuse of tools, is quite a combination. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Discussions regarding this user are open on multiple noticeboards. I'd suggest consolidating everything on one so others don't have to chase discussions and comments between several pages. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Perhaps someone can physically move the entire AN discussion here. ScottyBerg (talk) Moved from AN An RfC that I initiated is underway in WP:CANVASS[60] [61][62][63][64][65][66]: "I am sick an tired of the BS that goes on here in Wikipedia. I would like for you to check out the link here and if you wish express yourself." He then links to a Puerto Rico Wikiproject posting entitled "Urgent participation requested." [67] , also anything but neutral in tone. Friendly, neutrally worded notices to past editors of the article on both sides of an issue are perfectly OK, but this is anything but and appears to be vote-stacking because he is aiming it at editors who have supported him in the past. None of them appear to have edited either the article or talk page in the past. If he was trying to be neutral he would have included in his long list of recipients User:Varlaam, who actively participated in the article in the recent past, but disagreed with this editor. The user in question is an administrator, which only compounds matters, and I've asked him to revert and he won't. [68]. In this post he explains that he was notifying the "Puerto Rican community." [69]. I don't think it's appropriate to cherry-pick editors on the basis of national origin, evidently in the hope of influencing the outcome. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Although soliciting past participants is considered an acceptable practice, the main purpose of RfCs is to solicit opinion of uninvolved editors. In any case, can Marine 69-71 provide his/her selection criteria? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC) I was as much concerned with the wording of his notices to these editors as his selection criteria. He was making perfectly clear his strong an angry feelings concerning this issue. He left no doubt whatsoever that he was soliciting support for his position, especially since he was on the losing end of a similar RfC discussion just a few days ago.[70] This was far more than a "wink and a nod." The best way to get uninvolved editors is to let the RfC run its course, not to run to the Wikiproject in which he is active, in the hope of getting support for his position. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC) You can rest assured that the wording of his notice has not been ignored (at least by this editor). I asked about selection criteria because that seems to be the most ambigious at this time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC) All but one are on Marine69-71's official listing of his Wikifriends, his "Wall of honor." [71] ("Here I honor some of the Wikipedians whom I consider among the best and whom I've had the pleasure of interacting with.") ScottyBerg (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC) I am a long time contributor in Wikipedia. My contributions speak for themselves. I am not canvassing. I am not asking anyone to be in favor or against anything. I am not asking for votes, but for opinions be it in favor to my opinion or not. User: Scottyberg himself posted the "An editor has requested comment from other editors for this discussion.", however for some unknown reason he has twice failed to notify the Puerto Rican community for their opinion at the Puerto Rican Project page considering that this is a Puerto Rican related article it is the proper thing to do. Yes, in accordance to his own request, I have also requested the opinion of other editors who may be interested in the matter. This does not mean that I will recieve any opinions the same as mine since everyone is free to express themselves. I have even suggested to User: Scottyberg that the subject should be discussed in the proper forum where others "not" conected with him and myself can clear the situation. User: Scottyberg has been known in the past to team up against me with another user in subjects which are related to my contributions for reasons only known to him as evidenced here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Santiago (3rd nomination) Revision history of User:Marine 69-71/Tony Santiago Talk:William Walter Kouts Talk: List of Puerto Ricans he even has my "talk page" in his "watchlist" to watch my every movement. No, I am not canvassing, just requesting opinions. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC) An RfC is designed to obtain the widest possible opinions of uninvolved editors. There is nothing in the RfC page that requires editors to notify the Wikiproject. Your implying otherwise, in your posting on the Wikiproject page, is part of the problem with your approach here. You still haven't responded to AQFK's query concerning your selection criteria. Apart from their being predisposed to side with you, all being your wikifriends and all but one being on your "Wall of Honor," what possible reason would you have to solicit their opinion, considering that the wider community had just been solicited via this RfC? The RfC began only a few hours ago. Why not wait for it to run its course rather than sending out a distress signal to people you expect will support you? You know perfectly well that the wording of your notice to the editors ("I am sick an tired of the BS that goes on here in Wikipedia") was such as to seek to elicit support, not a "neutral opinion." What was so "urgent" about the situation apart from the fact that you were losing the argument on the talk page of the article? By saying "urgent participation requested" on the Wikiproject page, you were making perfectly clear what outcome you wanted, which was help. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC) You seem to not understand Scotty, this is not about soliciting "support" for anything, it is not a consensus. It is about requesting the opinions of those who wish to do so. There is no thought of a losing argument since there is no valid consensus involved. Of course my "BS" stands for what you make it out to be because that is what I feel that it is. I am entitled to express my own opinion especially when in the past you have teamed up against me. Sorry for the choice of words, if they offended you, but I’ve seen worse. Your implication that I am a power player in amongst those whom I have had the pleasure of interacting with and who are in my "Wall of Honor" is totally unfounded as evidenced by the fact that the article which my son wrote about me and which you depleted and nominated for deletion, was deleted. That fact is that I have not violated policy and I am not have canvassing for votes nor support, I am requesting "opinions" from parties which may or ay not be interested in participating. Simple as that. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Of course it's about soliciting support. Why do you keep denying the obvious? And why won't you respond to AQFK's question? ScottyBerg (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Your canvassing has had the desired effect. A member of your "wall of honor" has arrived[72] and, surprise surprise, he is the only editor to support your position. I'm sure there will be more, thanks to your vigorous canvassing. Per Collect's comment in the RfC, I request that whichever administrator closes this RfC take WP:False consensus into consideration. ScottyBerg (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Tony the Marine: What was your selection criteria? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC) They appear to be select members of Wikiproject Puerto Rico for the most part, with two others being Puerto Rican but not listed as members. IMO that message is not neutral and this is quite clearly CANVASSING.Griswaldo (talk ) 13:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC) There's nothing neutral about saying, "I am sick an tired of the BS that goes on here in Wikipedia." -- Atama頭 16:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Tony the Marine's an administrator??? Pretty bare-faced case of canvassing...and his defence is "I've seen worse". As he's an admin this should go to AN/I, IMO. DeCausa (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Your point is well taken. I've posted a note on ANI [73] referring to this discussion. My apologies if I went to the wrong forum, but I don't have much experience with this kind of thing. My reporting his abuse of admin tools, see below, appears to clearly belong in ANI. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Up to this point, this was originally posted on ANI before I moved it here. Hans Adler 19:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Abuse of tools? I also request that administrators review Marine 69-71's use of his administrator tools in User:AntonioMartin , protected the page, but there was some kind of technical problem so his father, Marine 69-71, stepped in to protect the page. AntonioMartin had no justification for protecting the page. There had been no vandalism, just an editor disagreeing with his father. However, I am less concerned about his conduct because he was not a regular editor of the page. Marine is very much a regular editor there, and he should not have used his administrator tools on a flimsy pretext to fully protect his "favored version" of a page in a content dispute. Another editor and I raised the issue on his talk page, and he unprotected the article [77], but showed absolutely no understanding that he had improperly used his tools in a content dispute in which he was involved. Ironically, after an RfC I initiated, Marine later removed the list in question, an action he had previously called "vandalism."[78] Marine needs to be, at a minimum, cautioned to properly use his tools. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Something's gone seriously wrong with this admin. Isn't AN/I the appropriate venue? DeCausa (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC) As I noted above, I've brought this to the attention of ANI. Perhaps it can be dealt with here, or the entire topic can be moved to ANI? ScottyBerg (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Marine 69-71: Can you please explain why you used your tools in a content dispute that you were directly WP:INVOLVED? The community entrusts admins with the tools on the condition that they not abuse them. I note (as Scotty did) that Marine 69-71 undid the protection the next day[79] A Quest For Knowledge (talk ) 17:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC) He did unprotect, which is why I did not raise the issue sooner. However, he is totally unremorseful, refused to pledge that there would be no repetition of such misuse, and has in fact lashed out against myself and the other editor who saved him from himself (see the snide remarks and attacks in his earlier posts above, and also [80]). The blatant canvassing indicates to me that he is behaving abominably for an administrator and that action needs to be taken. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC) By the way, I'd suggest treading lightly with this editor. It just came to my attention that he he has a list of editors, who he does't name, who he wishes were dead. I'm not kidding. See the "wall of dishonor" on one of his numerous user subpages:[81]. Is it appropriate for Wikipedia to have on its roll of administrators a person who wants other Wikipedia editors to be snuffed out? ScottyBerg (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Actually I just noticed that one the tombstones has the letter "S." I guess I'd better double-lock my doors tonight. He intiiated this "wall of dishonor" two days ago. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Wouldn't now be the appropriate time to move this into a WP:RFC/ADMIN proceeding? I don't recall any direct interactions with this user, but the above commentary brings me to question whether he should continue to hold a mop. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk ) 17:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Agreed. I don't think stating on your userpage "here are some of the Wikipedians whom I wish were dead" is consistent with being and administrator on En:Wikipedia! DeCausa (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC) RFC/ADMIN is only for misuse of admin tools -- the "wall of dishonor" doesn't qualify, and should be addressed in a normal WP:RFC/U.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC) The original issue WP:RFC/ADMIN. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk ) 19:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Holy shit! His page says, “ Here are some of the Wikipedians whom I wish were dead ” . However, it doesn't seem to list anyone. He's taken it down saying it was just a joke.[82] Jeez...what's going on with this admin? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC) It was no joke. It is/was appalling; an expression of his anger, specifically at me, an attempt to intimidate, part of the "tough guy" shtick that you see on his pages. That, canvassing, abuse of tools, a death list - seriously, what kind of thing is necessary to wrench the tools away from an administrator who shouldn't have them? ScottyBerg (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC) he's obviuosly reading these postings (and reacting by taking down his wall of dishonor) but not posting any responses. The behaviour gets stranger. It's more a question of whether he should be blocked rather than just loosing the tools. He must at least explain himself and undertake not to post anything like the wall of dishonor again per WP:NPA#Consequences of personal attacks DeCausa (talk ) 18:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC) I can see the wall being an issue if anyone had ever been listed there, but as far as I can tell, both from the above, and the page, no one ever was. While still in bad taste, I don't think the wall is really actionable. You should be happy he is taking the concerns expressed here seriously, and remember that he isn't required to respond immediately. Monty845 18:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC) I disagree. I don't think that Marine needs to name names for a "list of editors I want to see dead" to be extremely problematic on the part of an administrator. What I see is an administrator who feels that he can get away with anything: canvassing, abuse of tools, even wishing unnamed Wikipedia editors dead. As one of the editors who has indeed crossed this person, and whose name does indeed begin with "S" (one of the letters on the "tombstone") perhaps I don't see the alleged "humor" in this. I see an editor with tools but no scruples. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC) In context this edit as good as names an editor as the one he wished dead.[83].--Cube lurker (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Under the assumption that this is still the same person who was made an admin many years ago when rules were still a bit more relaxed, and who then continued to use an extremely weak password until the account was hacked [84], the discrepancy between the user's ethics and what the project expects of an admin seems to have reached the point where he is no longer tenable. To me this looks like a case for a quick Arbcom motion. Hans Adler 18:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC) In case it's not clear, the problem here is a an editor who presents himself on his user page as a former New York gang member ("The Man with the Gun") who later became a soldier and calls himself "Tony the Marine" on Wikipedia. Plenty of rewards displayed on his user page that were presumably obtained by killing people, or at least helping to do so. And this editor, right after giving in in a dispute with another editor, creates a symbolic graveyard and puts the other editor's initial under a tomb stone. In my opinion this kind of behaviour requires an immediate block. Hans Adler 19:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Up to this point, this subsection was originally posted on ANI and I moved it here. Hans Adler 19:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC) I am sorry for the "Wall of Dishonor" thing. It was meant as an experimental joke and realizing that it was of bad taste, I have removed it. The "S' was not directed at anyone it was meant to be a symbol of stupidity. Yes, I did commit a mistake with my tools and I realized that. My public apologies to Varlaam, who is a very good editor. I did what I believed was right at the time, but realized later that my actions were wrong and undid the "protection" which was the issue. In regard to what seems to be canvassing, it was not intended that way since according to my knowledge canvassing is an act of asking for "votes" and I believe that this was not the case. The reason that I notified these people is because they have been contributors to Puerto Rican related articles and most of them do not follow RfC. Yes, it may have been in bad taste to post "I sick and tired of this "BS", however I let the fact that Scotty has been constantly on my case get to me and there is no excuse for my actions. I know that the discussion at "Talk: Irish immigration to Puerto Rico will go in favor of Scotty's nomination because the logic of the arguments seem to indicate it and believe it or not I am leaning to agree as I did with the argument in regarding a certain section. Yes, I messed up because I let my stress get the better part of me and I will refrain from doing so in the future. I apologize. Hans, your choice of words "Plenty of rewards displayed on his user page that were presumably obtained by killing people, or at least helping to do so" is very inapropiate and insulting. Do not accuss me nor insinuate that I have commited such criminal acts. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC) I just don't buy this. According to WP:VIOLENCE (which in my opinion should generally not be taken too seriously as it can lead us into hysterical reactions), we would have to contact your local authorities. With all the background that you have given on your user page, you are the last person we can allow to make death-related jokes involving other editors on Wikipedia. I am not saying we should contact the authorities, but it is just not reasonable from the point of view of editors who get into conflicts with you and live in the same country that you should retain your editing privileges. If you present yourself as a Vietnam veteran on your user page, then don't complain when people assume that you are a Vietnam veteran. It's fine if you are ashamed of your role in the killings, but if you bring it up it's entirely your own fault. What did you get the "Rifle Sharpshooter Badge" for, for example? Hans Adler 19:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC) I just wanted to point out that it has taken Herculean efforts to extract from Marine 69-71 a grudging and mealy-mouthed admission that he misused "committed a mistake with" his tools, one that he was not willing to make without the threat of a block, and after previous ferocious denials. He's now willing to admit, hallelujah,now that he faces a block as well as desyssopping, that, gee, keeping a death list on a subpage is not a good thing. He still shows an abysmal lack of understanding of the rules on canvassing that any non-rookie editor learns. I don't for a second believe his feeble excuse for putting my initial on a tombstone. I agree with Floquenbeam[85] that he needs to "man up" on that, and hasn't, and that the real explanation for his putting my initial on a tombstone is that "it represents a real person, but I did it that way so I'd know who it was, and they'd know who it was, but I could have plausible deniabiltity if called on it." How many more times are we going to have to disrupt our lives because this administrator doesn't know, or care about, basic Wikipedia policies and behavioral standards?ScottyBerg (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Unless you can provide good diffs, I am not sure you are taking this in a fruitful direction. I am personally much more concerned by the question whether we want to suffer a person whose behaviour is most consistent with lasting dehumanisation due to war conditions to continue editing. Right now he even appeared to deny that people were killed in the Vietnam war, presumably under the rationalisation that if it's legal from the POV of his country then it's not killing. Hans Adler 19:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC) (multiple ec's, I type too slow and events keep overtaking me. This comment was somewhat revised after Hans Alder's comment 10 minutes ago, I don't have to energy to revise it for Scotty's (or any others I'm going to find out about when I try to save this again)) Let's not get too sidetracked; this is ANI, we should focus on the real issues (waits for laughter to subside). Tony's assurance that this is not going to continue is temporarily enough for me, personally, although I strongly urge him to take a voluntary break from here for a while. I'm disappointed in the explanation that S stands for "stupidity", as that seems extremely dubious. But as long as we have an assurance that it won't be repeated, I'm inclined to wait and verify that, and overlook a face-saving alternative explanation. Note that this is only regarding the wall of dishonor issue; I don't have time to look at the other underlying issues. An RFC or RFAR may or may not be warranted based on overall problems, I don't know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Scotty, I already stated that the Wall situation was not directed at you, if it were I would have posted "SB" or something. I am sorry if you misunderstood this. I apologized, yet now I am subject to personal and false attacks. I am surprised at how concerned you are of my mistakes yet, you say nothing when another editor attacks me with false accusations of "killing people, or at least helping to do so". Do you not condemn personal attacks such as Hans, attack towards me? Tony the Marine (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC) I don't see a person attack from Hans. I see concern. Someone who has most likely killed in the line of duty posts threatening stuff about people he'd like too see dead. The former aspect makes this situation much more grave and I think Hans has every right to point this out. Do you understand that it is not OK to have lists of people you want dead, and do you understand that it is even more threatening coming from a former Marine who served in active duty during a major war?Griswaldo (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Tony the Marine: According to my knowledge canvassing is an act of asking for "votes". As an Admin you should be aware of what WP:Canvassing says. Some quotes from the policy defining canvassing: Firstly, "Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner." Can you explain in what is neutral about beginning your message "I am sick an tired of the BS that goes on here in Wikipedia."? Secondly, "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors". Why did you only notify editors from your hall of honor and omit the editor mentioned by ScottyBerg? DeCausa (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC) @Floquenbeam: I've had to file two content RfCs within the space of two weeks on account of this one administrator's lack of basic knowledge about policies. (Except for the editor he canvassed, not a single one supported him, and he is now "graciously" admitting that he is wrong.) I had to come to AN because he willfully disregarded the rules on canvassing. This editor is a time sponge who behaves like a new editor, not a Wikipedia administrator who has been here for years. I don't know, or care, why that is so. I do not believe that his promise to do better has much value when he clearly doesn't understand, or care about, the policies he violated, and when he only makes such a promise at the point of a gun (pardon the expression). ScottyBerg (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC) I'd just like to point out that I really hope that Tony is not being singled out due to his service as a Marine (there's a saying that there are no ex-Marines). I do agree that military experience might make a threat of violence slightly more credible, but suggestions about "lasting dehumanisation due to war conditions" and other remarks that might be discriminatory are disturbing to me. -- Atama頭 20:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC) It is your right to be disturbed by my remarks. I reserve the right to be a lot more disturbed by the underlying historical events, and somewhat disturbed by the fact that an editor is vigorously taking them into the user space of this encyclopedia, making death threats, and then implausibly denying them instead of apologising for them. A person who got a sharpshooter medal is obviously trained to kill. Such a person has no business making comments about wishing other people dead in a collaborative online environment. Hans Adler 20:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Comment 1. Do not accuse me of "killing people, or at least helping to do so" or commiting a crime. Unless you have proof of an accusations it is a personal attack which is against Wikipedia policy. 2. There was no "list" of people that I wanted dead. Show me proof that there was a list with names. An "S" was an experiemntal symbol. 3. I already explained my mistaken actions as to why I notified the members of the Puerto Rican community. 4. I already explained that Scotty notified other editors with the RfC "tag". 5. I have publicly apologized. I'm sorry, but I am not perfect and may make a mistake. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC) I thought "S" stood for Stupidity?--Cube lurker (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, "S" was a symbol to represnt stupidity. Stupidity that I should have even joked about such a thing. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC) More blame shifting. My "notifying other editors with the RfC 'tag'" does not in any way, shape or form justify/explain his canvasssing. Again, this editor does not understand or care about a simple behavioral guideline. He didn't understand it when I pointed it out to him, and he doesn't understand it now, or give a damn. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC) You have outed yourself as a Vietnam veteran, "Tony the Marine" alias "Marine 69-71", and not in a subtle way either. I don't care about your rationalisations for participating in that slaughter. What matters is that you don't bring similar potentially lethal us-versus-them attitudes into Wikipedia as you did here. If you deny that people were killed in the Vietnam war, how are we supposed to believe your protestations that you were not going to kill the editor you put under a tomb stone? After all, you appear to see him as only an enemy as well. Hans Adler 20:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Hans, you acusse me of killing people, please provide us with any deniable proof that I have killed someone. I did not make any death threats nor do I have a list wishing other people dead. Show me the list with the names of other people. Please stop assuming and the false acussations of me and stick to the issues, thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Hans, that's really pushing it. Nobody is denying Tony's service, but you're making personal attacks due to your obvious distaste for the Vietnam War and those who participated in it. Per WP:SOAPBOX you should drop this. -- Atama頭 20:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Tony made a threat of violence. The military setting of his user page, which looks extremely credible and shows an obsession with at war that left a lot of veterans a danger to society, makes this thread a lot more credible than it would have been otherwise. If you want to play hardball and defend Tony's behaviour, I can do so too and initiate the standard procedures described at WP:VIOLENCE. In my 3 1/2 years with Wikipedia this is only the second time that I encounter a threat of violence that I would consider sufficiently severe to consider this. Hans Adler 20:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Tony, you put the following on a user page: "here are some of the Wikipedians whom I wish were dead." Then you had tombstones, one with my initial on it. Please stop denying the obvious. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC) (ec) Stop misquoting me. Here is what I said: "Plenty of rewards displayed on his user page that were presumably obtained by killing people, or at least helping to do so." Clearly you were pretty active in the Vietnam war, and clearly you are still obsessed with it. I don't have to prove that people were killed in that war, and it would be ridiculous to assume that someone who carries his past as proudly as you are doing thinks of himself as some kind of resistance fighter who tried to subvert his army. So stop this nonsense already. The real question is whether you can control your urge to kill other editors. Unfortunately your impulsive, irrational behaviour in this thread does not inspire much confidence. Hans Adler 20:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC) (ec) My concern about the "death list" that Tony is now trying to sweep under the rug is that his behavior is bizarre enough, and he takes things personally enough, to make it troublesome. I was disturbed by this comment he made in an exchange with me on his talk page[86]: "Look, for some reason to unknown me, you seem to hate me, you have been on my case for a long time..." WTF? "Hate me"? I shrugged off this bizarre remark, but after seeing my initial on a tombstone yes, I think it needs to be taken seriously, whether its posturing or a sign of something worse. No, I don't think that a weak, grudging, half-hearted, insincere apology is sufficient in light of all that has gone on. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC) There are three potential issues here: (1) "the wall of dishonor", (2) possible abuse of tools, (3) canvassing. Neither Tony's status as an ex-Marine nor his service in Vietnam has anything to do with this discussion, as neither violate any Wikipedia policy. Hysteria over those issues needs to stop, and continued investigation of the three legitimate issues should continue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC) In the event of an RfC on his conduct, there are also unresolved questions, not previously raised here, concerning COI issues. I actually first became involved with this editor when I became aware that there was an article on him, written by his son, and that he spammed photographs of his son throughout the project. The article was deleted based upon my nomination, which might partly explain his obsession with me as evidenced by his "S" tombstone. I agree with you that his Marine service is neither here nor there (except perhaps to the extent that he has multiple user subpages that are biographical and self-congratulatory in nature.) However, I think that Hans does raise a valid point in expressing the view that his implied/explicit death threat against almost-unnamed Wiki editors needs to be taken seriously. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Sweet jesus, ANI is irredeemably ridiculous. Let's at least be clear about one thing: this was not a death threat. It was an unacceptable personal attack that has been removed, with a half-hearted apology and a promise not to repeat it. If you consider it more proof of being unfit to be an admin, by all means take it to an RFC or RFAR; desysopping is not going to happen here, it never has and it never will. If you think he should be blocked for making a personal attack after he's withdrawn it and promised not to do it again, because the apology was not sincere, then be clear and say so, you have a decent chance of finding an admin that shares that view. But please stop posturing that this was an actual death threat of some kind, and let's not re-fight the Vietnam War. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Excuse me, but stating on your user page that you want other editors dead, and putting out pictures of tombstones, one with an initial that refers to me, is a death threat by any reasonable definition of the term. Yes, it was an insincere apology. That much is obvious. If this wasn't an administrator I am sure he would have already been blocked - that's also obvious. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Suggestion At this point, it looks like several editors are objecting to WP:RFC/ADMIN for administrative conduct. Dispute resolution offers the possibility of centralized discussion in a controlled environment and a path to a remedy to the situation. Since I'm not a participant in the dispute, I won't start such an RFC, but I urge everyone involved to look to our established methods for reaching an actual resolution. Regards, causa sui (talk ) 20:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Stifling this discussion or proposing to turn to a process that lasts weeks if not months strikes me as entirely the wrong approach here. But given that a desysop is obviously required, I have asked the functionaries-en mailing list for guidance rather than undo the hatting. Let's see what happens. Hans Adler 21:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC) I understand that you feel this situation is urgent, but desysopping takes time. It is important that all the issues and evidence be considered carefully and in a controlled, dispassionate environment before serious sanctions are handed down. I don't think you would want to argue that the process should be rushed. Finally, as AN/I discussion cannot result in a desysop anyway, I thank you for not re-opening the discussion, and urge you a second time to pursue established dispute resolution channels. Regards, causa sui (talk) 21:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC) That's absurd. An editor can't behave so egregiously with impunity just because he is an admin. If he wasn't, surely he would have been blocked hours ago. We are not supposed to have such a two-class system, but I guess the feeling that it's kind of absurd to block someone who is technically able to unblock himself creates just that because it prevents the impulsive, and often (not always, obviously) beneficial quick ANI-response blocks that we often see. In this case the right point for such a block was missed, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't have been correct. Random editors leaving random threats against no one in particular are indeffed with little fanfare. And then we should spend months debating whether an admin may talk about his wish to see an easily identifiable specific editor dead, and then deny it instead of apologising and promising not to do it again? Let's wait what Arbcom says. Hans Adler 22:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC) That discussion got out of hand in large part because you, Hans, introduced a massively inflammatory red herring about Vietnam. If anyone stiffled the discussion, it was you. DeCausa (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Keep in mind that if you bring this before ArbCom, they have a recent history of inaction against admin misconduct. Revently there was an admin who involved in that dispute. Guess what ArbCom did? A Quest For Knowledge (talk ) 22:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC) (ec)As the editor who was the target of Marine's death threat, I admit to a degree of frustration at seeing him walk away scot free without so much as a slap on the wrist, after making an insincere and half-hearted non-apology. I think that this sends the wrong message, or the right message perhaps, that there is an egregious double standard that allows administrators to get away with conduct that would result in immediate disciplinary action if committed by anybody else. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC) ScottyBerg: Marine 69-71 did not make a death threat against you. Instead, he said he wish you were dead. There is a subtle but important distinction. You are not doing yourself any favors by overplaying your case. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC) I don't find that distinction to be a material difference, and I don't think it's unreasonable for Wikipedia to have a zero-tolerance policy toward death fantasies directed toward other editors. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC) If the editor in question wasn't an administrator, I would do two things... I would leave a strong warning about canvassing, and also threaten to block indefinitely unless they made a clear statement that there is no implied threat of violence. I believe that Tony has made it clear that no violence is being threatened. So if this weren't an administrator, I'd leave the person a stern warning. On the other hand, this person is an administrator, and they have at least once misused the tools. With the other conduct problems added to that, I don't see an RfC as inappropriate. So I suppose I see this the opposite of Hans, I do agree that there is something of a "two-class system", but I believe it's to Tony's detriment. What I do agree with Hans about is that there is a problem here that should be addressed. An RfC is the proper way to go about this. I won't initiate one, because my involvement has been restricted to a couple of comments here and at AN, but I'd be interested in participating if someone else is willing to start it. -- Atama頭 22:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Seconded from start to finish. --causa sui (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC) I'm not a huge fan of this closure, but I understand why it was done. ScottyBerg, if you really want to send the right message and prevent this from happening again, I would recommend going through with the RFC/U. At the very worst, it will allow ArbCom to more easily judge the situation if it comes to that. Tony, if you really don't understand that your posts were in violation of WP:CANVASS, you need to do two things. First, you need to read the policy over again. Second, you need to stop doing anything similar to what you did without first contacting a single uninvolved senior editor and asking if your proposed notifications are acceptable. You are responsible for following the policy even if you disagree with it; selecting those that you perceive to be more likely to agree with you is unacceptable. NW (Talk ) 22:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC) I'm exploring that possibility right now. If any other editor is willing to certify the RFC/U, they should let me know. There need to be at least two editors who attempted to resolve the issue with the user. I'm one. Who else? If it doesn't make it to RfC, given the unusual circumstances and clear-cut conduct here, it may be a good idea to take this straight to arbcom. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC) If you can't find even a single other editor who can certify an RFC, it is definitely not ripe for Arbcom. But in this case, I don't think you'll have much trouble. --causa sui (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC) OK, I'm all ears. I've emailed one potential candidate and have yet to hear back. Any other potential certifiers are free to bring themselves to my attention. I have to admit that I read through the RfC rules and they are not exactly models of simplicity. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC) It can seem complicated, especially the first time through. Unfortunately, the formalized process is the price of ensuring that the discussion is orderly. I would offer to help you work through the process, but I'm going out of town for several days and won't have access to a computer. Still, since I don't see any suggestion that abuse is ongoing, I wouldn't feel too rushed about getting this done within the next 30 minutes. I assure you that the statute of limitations for allegations of admin abuse is longer than this, and taking some time to understand dispute resolution procedures will not change the result of the RFC. Regards, --causa sui (talk ) 23:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the offer; it's appreciated. Right now my problem is mathematical: I need to count to two. To be continued. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC) I suggest that you stop wasting your time on the RfC/U red herring. It was totally inappropriate to dismiss you from here in the first place, and sooner or later a critical mass of reasonable editors will arrive here. This isn't so complicated that it needs an RfC/U. Not even close. Hans Adler 00:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC) I am in favor of any process that will result in getting this resolved. Meanwhile, I urge that this further discussion not be hatted. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Wow! An editor has differed with an admin, and that admin puts the initial of the editor on a tombstone under "Here are some of the Wikipedians whom I wish were dead" (diff). And the remedy? Hat the discussion ASAP and make the victim spend hours writing a deadend RFC/U. Johnuniq (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Regarding the hatting of the initial discussion, I did it in support of causa's suggestion at the top of this sub-section because it's obvious that anything that AN/I can do has now been exhausted. It's here for people to see, but there's nothing more that can occur at AN/I to resolve the dispute. So, other than allowing people to throw poop at each other for a week or so, there's just no point in leaving this open here. Sign on to the RFC/U if you think that something needs to be done. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC) He has a point. AN/I is specifically supposed to deal with administrator misconduct. If it can't deal with a situation as straightforward as this one, why bother to raise admin misconduct here at all? ScottyBerg (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC) This discussion is surreal. Here is a reminder of the events that we are talking about: User:Marine 69-71. According to his long-standing user page, this user is the former New York gang member "The Man with the Gun", who then became a Marine and fought in the Vietnam War. WP:Articles for deletion/Tony Santiago (3rd_nomination). ScottyBerg is responsible for the second nomination (first was for an article on a different person) of an article on "Tony the Marine". The nomination was successful. Tony feels harrassed by ScottyBerg. [87] ("Look, for some reason to unknown me, you seem to hate me, you have been on my case for a long time, therefore I am not interested in conversing anymore with you.") Tony ends his editing session on 5 July as follows: [88] Archives a discussion at Talk:Irish immigration to Puerto Rico, in which he had to concede a point to ScottyBerg and remove material from the article. Tony adds a "wall of shame" to his "wall of honor" in the form of a graveyard. Tony labels one of the graves "S". Graveyard now looks like this [89] (bottom of page). Editing stops after one more tangentially related edit. [90] ScottyBerg discovers the graveyard and links to it. [91] 9 minutes later, Tony removes the graveyard, claiming it's a joke not directed at anybody. [92] 19:14. Tony: "I am sorry for the 'Wall of Dishonor' thing. It was meant as an experimental joke and realizing that it was of bad taste, I have removed it. The 'S' was not directed at anyone it was meant to be a symbol of stupidity." 20:09 "There was no 'list' of people that I wanted dead. Show me proof that there was a list with names. An 'S' was an experiemntal symbol." An editor with a violence-themed user page that leaves no doubt that he can use a gun creates a virtual grave for a user he is in a dispute with, and instead of a proper apology and guarantees that nothing like this will ever happen again we only get a half-hearted apology and implausible attempts at denial. And then the target of this attack is asked to find certification for an RfC/U? The lack of decency that can make an admin comment in this situation, "If you can't find even a single other editor who can certify an RFC, it is definitely not ripe for Arbcom" – that's just mind-boggling. The extreme bragging on the user page, the agressively defensive reactions to my probing concerning possible long-term effects of the Vietnam experience, the absurdly incompetent recent admin activities by this user, and the message left on ScottyBerg's talk page are each individually cause for concern. Taking them all together it's just criminal to let this situation smolder on and dismiss the victim. For all we know "Tony the Marine" is a ticking bomb. There has been no reaction from Arbcom yet, but I hope and expect that they will handle this competently, either on their own or by leaving it to the Foundation. (Obviously, if I didn't live on a different continent I wouldn't dream of touching this case given the convincing threat scenario that the user has set up.) Hans Adler 00:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC) I'd like to second the statement by Ohm's Law above. To reiterate: the closure of the discussion on AN/I most definitely does not reject any complaints, condone any disputed behavior, or preclude anyone with allegations of abuse from pursuing ordinary dispute resolution. Further, since there are no indications that abuse is ongoing, there is nothing else that can be done merely as a result of an AN/I discussion. It might help you to think of AN/I as more like a town hall than a courtroom. To follow the analogy, that you've made allegations of murder in a town hall, however well founded, does not make it the venue to pursue something as serious as capital punishment, again, however well founded. You would do well to separate your insistence that something be done from your insistence that it be done as a result of this discussion only. Signing off. Regards, --causa sui (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Ridiculous. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Egregious and obvious offences are dealt with quickly all the time. When was the last time we had an RfC/U on a serial spammer or a penis vandal? Normally the main problem is that some admins are too trigger-happy. The opposite problem only arises with people who are very well known and have lots of friends, and with admins. Hans Adler 00:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Hans, I realize that you're feeling threatened (that's how it appears to me, at least), but... calm down for a sec, OK? I understand your point that "Egregious and obvious offences are dealt with quickly all the time.", but the thing is that those offenses are issues that any administrator can handle. You're proposing desysoping someone, which nobody at AN/I can do anything about. In the meantime, Scotty is still looking for a second certifier, and there's a separate issue above that appears to require immediate attention from any admin which is being lost in the deluge of posts to this section. O_o — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Given the intimidation at work here, and the vindictive attitudes exhibited, it is by no means guaranteed that I can get a second certifier. So far I cannot. Remember that there are actually two rogue administrators at issue here. One is Marine69-71, the other is AntonioMartin, his son, to whom I alluded earlier as placing an unwarranted full protection on the article in which his dad was engaged in a content dispute. Here is a sample of what happens when you cross this father-and-son administrator team. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC) (ec) In bad cases such as this it is normal to block admins. They are not allowed to unblock themselves, and if they do (wouldn't be the first time), they are just making things worse for themselves. By not dealing with this problem, the Wikipedia community creates the impression that this is, in fact, how low our behavioural standards have sunk – that we aren't really sure whether Tony has done anything wrong. It's amazing how all of the hysterical civility police can disappear in their holes when someone really breaks fundamental behavioural norms. Hans Adler 00:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC) @Ohms law: Sometimes the voice of reason is bureaucratic twaddle. Of course we know that no one here can desysop an admin, but hours are spent discussing nonsense on this page, so when an actual issue like this arises there should be some clear guidance presented by the community. Please come out and say what you think about the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC) (ec) I have to second what Hans is saying about double standards. I've seen lowly editors flogged at AN/I for much less than this, often at times when they were vindicated in the end. Yet before that they were blocked, bullied or made to feel completely powerless while they were dragged through the mud by other admins. But that doesn't happen when an admin goes rogue with his tools and then puts some very tasteless and threatening shit on his userpage? Of course not. I've said this many times before but there are many editors here who feel rather justifiably that since they are not admins they have no recourse when they run into admin bullying. And everytime something like this happens that feeling is reinforced.Griswaldo (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Put down the torches and pitchforks and take a chill pill. Given that we know there is no overt threat (which is the only thing we would take action on) what is there to block about? If I were to block Tony, what do you suggest I put in the block log? "Blocked for being a killer who participated in the Vietnam War?" This rhetoric is getting over the top even for this board. -- Atama頭 01:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC) How about "canvassing," for starters. ScottyBerg (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC) It slipped my mind, but this is actually not the first time I've had to come to AN/I concerning Marine69-71 on an issue similar to the canvassing one we discussed earlier. Here is a record of the first time. Note the links in that archived page, especially 165 and 166. This is not the first time this editor has sought to distort the consensus-building process by bring to the attention of his wiki-pals discussions in which he had a direct personal stake. In this case the stakes could not be higher: the article was about him! ScottyBerg (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC) In the previous ANI discussion, there was no canvassing, in fact you said there was no canvassing at the time. When I run across an act of canvassing, and it is the first instance of a person doing it, I assume ignorance. In fact, I'm guilty of canvassing myself once early in my time on Wikipedia, I didn't realize until later what I'd done and I'm ashamed of it. It's especially disappointing to see this kind of behavior from an administrator who should know better, and is another reason why they may be unsuitable to have the bit (which is another reason why I still support the suggestion that de-adminship proceedings should continue). For anyone, administrator or not, if I see canvassing I issue a warning and only block if it's repeated. So yes, canvassing can be a blockable offense but in this case I don't see it that way. By the way, I'm not covering for Tony, I'm not interested in defending him, and I'm of the opinion that his conduct here casts into doubt whether he should be trusted with the tools from this point on. But there's nothing that warrants a block right now. -- Atama頭 01:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, I said that and I was wrong. It was canvassing. He was seeking to distort the consensus by getting his wiki-buddies to flock to his side. It didn't work, but it was still canvassing. I subsequently posted this note[93]. He did not respond to it, and later deleted it.[94] ScottyBerg (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC) In the previous ANI discussion, there was no canvassing. I disagree entirely. You mean that those who commented did not think there was any canvassing. When you are the subject of an article, and you post a message to a group of people who you consider your closest compadres on Wikipedia about your article being at AfD it no longer matters how you word your message. It is understood, clear as day, what the desired effect there is. That's just common sense. Claiming that since the message was technically worded in a neutral manner it is not canvassing is absurd. I think Scotty was entirely correct to have raised that concern back then.Griswaldo (talk) 01:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC) (ec) Thanks for the nice strawman. What's so much better about a threat of violence that it must be handled more leniently than a legal threat? Nothing, I guess. In both cases it's the chilling effect that counts. What matters is not whether the threat is overt or covert. What matters is that other editors feel that they cannot act freely because, if they do, e.g. the last thing they see in their life might be a madman with a gun. I argued vehemently against WP:VIOLENCE which is as potentially hysterical as TOV would have been. But this is one of those cases where it actually makes sense. If tomorrow ScottyBerg suddenly stops editing, we may never suspect that it is because he cannot edit any more, and if the police have not been notified they may never think of looking at his Wikipedia activities when looking for his enemies. I still don't think we should notify the police even in this situation; but we need to drive it home to Tony that he is just wrong. Hans Adler 01:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC) To be frank, I view it less as an actual threat of personal violence than as a cowardly and juvenile attempt at intimidation. He has been an administrator for six years, has flouted the rules on a number of occasions - WP:OWNing a dreadful autobiography sourced to Facebook and Wikipedia Signpost - and even managing to beat off the first AfD of that horrid article with the help of his wiki-pals. He feels immune from consequences and so far he has no reason to feel otherwise. He thinks this will die down and it will go back to business as usual, until the next time. ScottyBerg (talk ) 01:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC) OK, I'm loosing all interest in this really quickly amid the hysterics, and I'm probably hittin' the hay now anyway, but... blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Y'all are obviously in the midst of a personal dispute... I'm not really sure what you guys envision happening by comming here and shouting, stomping your feet, and throwing fits, but whatever. If it make you feel better, who am I to stop ya? — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC) OK, if graveyards for hated fellow editors are getting socially acceptable hereabouts, I will consider you once I get my own. Hans Adler 01:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC) (ec) This form of unethical intimidation is (normally) sufficient to trigger serious consequences. To take the legal threats analogy again, the graveyard was like a page where an editor lists law cases against other editors for their various infractions. E.g. "Antonio Santiago v. Scotty Berg". Established editors have been indeffed for legal threats way, way below this and sometimes even for statements that were firmly in the range of ordinary discourse. Hans Adler 01:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Hans, please drop the stick. Do you know how we handle legal threats? We block people until they are retracted. In this case, there isn't even an overt threat, but Tony made it clear that there's no threat. Of course, you choose to ignore that, and it's obvious that you personally dislike Tony because he was in the Vietnam War. There's no straw man there, you were very clear about it. Just like Ohms law, though, I'm done with this. If someone decides to actually start an RfC, or any other legitimate process, I might participate. But this discussion is getting pretty repetitive and silly. I'm too tired at this point to even bother. Have fun chatting with each other about this until someone else closes it. -- Atama頭 01:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC) One reason that AN/I can be so ineffective at dealing with behavioral problems is that people would rather indulge in emotionalism rather than deal rationally with concrete problems. The canvassing was wrong, the misuse of tools was wrong, the "wall of dishonor" page was wrong, but we've been derailed from a clear-headed and reasoned discussion of exactly how wrong, and whether the misbehavior rose to the level of desysopping, because of the totally inappropriate red herring about Vietnam and being a Marine. At this point, there's no chance that anything serious will be done, and that's largely the fault of the hysterics. Well done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Surely that Tony has a user page that shouts KILLING! KILLING! is very relevant in the context of his death phantasy, and he initiated the distraction by claiming that by fighting in Vietnam he didn't support killing. Some editors here seem to have a black spot for the military that amounts to an entire eye. Hans Adler 02:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC) I'm not being emotional, and I was the target of the death fantasy (I've been told "threat" is imprecise. whatever.) Those issues still can be addressed. An RfC is likely to be more of a zoo than you're seeing here. While I'm prepared to go ahead with one if I can find a co-signer, I do not for the life of me understand why community consensus cannot be achieved on the issues you state. No, canvassing is wrong, especially by an administrator. No, misuse of tools is wrong. Ditto on the Wall of Dishonor. This administrator has had the bit for six years. He should know the rules backwards and forwards, and we've seen instead a calculated cluelessness that is mind-boggling. And I am excluding the past COI record when I say that. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC) I do think some of the Marine veteran comments were out of line. But I'm somewhat confused as to how the RfC/U was supposed to work, that is, whether an effective solution was ever possible. From what I can tell, you can only do it if two users have tried to discuss it on the talk page without resolution. When the editor is not insisting on their changes, I would assume that the resolution is an apology? Admission of guilt? If this is the only way to take any formal measures regarding admins, it can't be that the process is blocked because the admin admits their fault each and every time they do something wrong, and can simply do it again with impunity a week later. I understand that the processes are generally preventative rather than punitive, but the idea of behind blocking is that users have shown they cannot be trusted, and someone can show themselves as not being trustworthy enough to have the tools without leaving more than one victim or doing something that lends itself to being resolved on their talk page. I'd be happy to be the second to certify, but it seems as though even this particularly arduous method of doing anything regarding an administrator is useless if the bad conduct does not take a particular form. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 02:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC) I share your confusion. I view an RfC as pointless wheel spinning, one that will degenerate into the free-for-alls that often take place in RfCs, assuming it is certified. There is no assurance that will happen. For example, canvassing. I was the only editor to ask him to stop that on his user page. So how can the RfC deal with canvassing. I need two certifiers. I and another editor sought to get him to not misuse his tools. He unprotected, even while insisting that he was right. Was there still an ongoing dispute that can be dealt with in an RfC? The "wall of dishonor" arose in the ANI. I'm not sure that's "certifiable." I wonder if passing the buck to an RfC will do anything more than give this administrator yet another free pass. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC) The latest dispatch from Marine 69-71. Nuclear Warfare had asked him to facilitate an RfC by waiving the certification requirement. He's completely blameless, is a victim of persecution and lies, has made piddling "mistakes" of no consequence. He knows an RfC is toothless, and he knows nothing is going to happen here. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC) What is an RFC going to accomplish? NW calls AN/I "drama central" but the first, and probably last, RFC on user conduct (also of an admin) I've participated in became the worst dramafest I've ever experienced. My experience is that in situations like this the most probable answer you'll get it is "not our problem." Any venue you might discuss this matter in could turn into drama central, but if you remove it from this venue then those who have commented here already and don't want to deal with it can pawn off responsibility to someone else. If Atama and Co. think RFC is the place to go then why not co-certify with Scotty? I'll tell you why, because they don't want anything to do with this.Griswaldo (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC) I agree. As I explained previously in some detail, it is unclear if any of Marine's misconduct can even be properly certifiable. He knows that, and he is counting on nothing to happen here. He knows that he does not face consequences. And just to make it clear, he will not facilitate bringing this to RfC by waiving the certification requirement.[95]. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC) (←) I'll comment again here but only on the RFC/U. One requirement of RFC/U is, "Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem." The problem is that I wasn't involved in the dispute. I wish I was because I would be more than happy to help certify it. RFC/U isn't completely toothless, it's a formal procedure that can be used at a later date as evidence. It's like mediation (which I also used to be heavily involved in once). Mediation isn't binding, but if mediation fails (or if people come to an agreement then fail to follow through with it) then the next step can occur. Also, regarding Mahewa's earlier comment, "If this is the only way to take any formal measures regarding admins, it can't be that the process is blocked because the admin admits their fault each and every time they do something wrong, and can simply do it again with impunity a week later." There is no difference between administrators and non-admins when it comes to behavior. If a non-admin is conducting themselves improperly, but not so blatantly that a block is in order, then an RFC/U is also the method to use. Here's an example of an RFC/U I helped certify (actually, I pretty much wrote the bulk of it and provided all the evidence), Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Femmina. This was against a non-admin, and this was long before I was an admin myself. The subject of the RFC/U didn't bother to comment (aside from this charming addition), and in fact aside from a group of people agreeing with the basis for the complaint nothing else happened. But, despite the appearance that the RFC/U was useless, the editor did move on and stop the behavior that was the basis for the complaint. So anyone who thinks that I would shy away from the process because I have no interest in getting involved in one doesn't know me. I just don't think that I can help certify it. -- Atama頭 03:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Well you see, that's the problem. There may be practical problems with having this as the subject of an RfC, as I described earlier. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Thank you for the clarification, I understand the process a little better now, but I think you missed where I was coming from (mainly due to my lack of clarity). I wasn't at all suggesting thatyou aren't willing to help or anything like that. What I meant to say is that I'm not quite sure of what's to be done, more of a critique of the process insofar as it's a critique at all. People seem to not think that this discussion has a point, and I don't know that I disagree, but I feel like no real alternative has been given. I don't think people are comfortable saying that nothing should happen so they have gestured at RfC, but I don't think anyone can be the second to certify.Ultimately, what I meant to say the process is broken if we all know it's wrong for this to just be ignored but that's really all the policies allow. If that's really the case, we should acknowledge it and try to fix the policies (and I realize just how naive that sounds given how much effort and time has gone into this very discussion). ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 03:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC) You're not being naive at all. I think that this situation is food for thought no matter the ultimate outcome. Who polices the policemen? That's the macro issue here. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC) The idea is supposed to be that the admins police each other when possible, and I think the role of arb com with respect to admins is to resolve otherwise irresolvable differences between them, and do the actual desysop when necessary. For there very definitely is something AN/I can do quite independently of ArbCom. We can block. It is well established that removing a block on oneself is not acceptable to arb com, and though it is impossible to prevent someone who is blocked from exercising admin functions, I'm sure arb com would regard it similarly. It's time we took action ourselves when it becomes necessary--for we can use short and then successively longer blocks to prevent further damage. Obviously no one admin should do this without clear consensus, and whether there is consensus to do it here is something I am not judging, but if there is I suggest that a short block might be the correct remedy. And without regard to this particular issue, it's time we became a good deal more active ourselves. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Cutting to the chase Scotty, what do you want to happen here? What result are you looking for? An apology? A block? A desysop? A promise he won't use the tools for a while? A believable promise that this won't happen again? Public acknowledgement that you were right and he was wrong? What do you want? --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC) At this point he hasn't acknowledged that he did anything wrong. He admits only "mistakes" and blames me for his predicament. His behavior has been uniformly arrogant, dishonest and insincere. He shows an abysmal and I think willful refusal to abide by site policies on article content and editor behavior (COI, canvassing, use of his tools, and of course his appalling "wall of dishonor"). In the recent controversy over OR in an article he twice acted like a wet-behind-the-ears newbie and not like an administrator of six years experience. I had to twice go to an RfC because an administrator of six years experience won't abide by WP:OR. He got no support except from the one editor he canvassed. Why is that? Is he really so ignorant of WP:OR or does he simply not give a damn? Either way, he is not qualified to be an administrator. His "mistakes" are enormously disruptive and I guarantee there will be more of them. I think it is obvious and urgently needed that he be separated from his tools. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC) OK, you're looking for a desysop. The thing is, I'm fairly sure the only way you're going to get that to happen is to go thru ArbCom. It is technically impossible to achieve that here, not because admins protect admins, but because the only people who can desysop anyone are Stewards, and they aren't going to listen to anyone except an Arb, certainly not a derailed ANI thread. The only thing I think you're going to get out of an RFCUA (or whatever the name is, an admin conduct RFC), is (a) at best, maybe community consensus that there should be a desysop, which you could then take to ArbCom to see if they'll pass a motion (this strikes me as very unlikely); or (b) community consensus that if he continues with this behavior going forward, he should be taken to ArbCom and they will quite likely desysop him (this seems very likely if the people complaining about his behavior can stay focused); or (c) a pointless time sink drama fest (this seems very likely if the people complaining about his behavior do not stay focused). So, I don't think it is likely that you are going to get what you want right away (though you can certainly try if you want); I think the best you can hope for is get a "final warning" type result from an RFC that a repeat of the problems will result in what you want. I would probably be willing to co-certify an RFC if I know we're shooting for option (b). I'm not going to waste my time if I think we're going to end up with option (c). Would you settle for that, or do you want to go straight to ArbCom, or do you want to just give up? --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC) I have no problem with going to an RfC and hope that the discussion will remain focused on the real issues. However, I do not understand how you can co-certify. I just don't know how that's technically possible, under the RfC rules. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC) I believe I can co-certify because I tried to resolve the Wall of Dishonor portion of the problem, and am not happy with the response from an admin. I'm not willing to block over the issue, nor press for a desysop over it, but I am willing to press for consensus that anything like that again will result in a desysop. I don't believe I have to have been involved in every single portion of the dispute. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC) I think you're right, really all you have to show (from my experience) is that you tried and failed to resolve the larger problem. The "Wall of Dishonor" issue may have occurred on another page at a different time than the problems that ScottyBerg ran into, but they are all part of a larger picture of events that happened at once, so I think that would count. I initially commented that I felt that Tony's message was non-neutral and thus qualified as canvassing, but then I was sidetracked when I tried to respond to what I saw as harassment against Tony. So I found myself unwillingly acting as his advocate. Sometimes I hate trying to do the right thing. But I'm glad you got involved Floquenbeam, and I think that's enough for an RFC/U to start. -- Atama頭 04:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC) I'm off to bed. I'll check back tomorrow morning. If you find someone else willing to co-certify, you should probably take them up on it; I've got some conditions you may or may not be OK with. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC) talk • contribs ) 13:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC) I contacted Doug after reading DGG's statement, which came after the discussion was hatted when I was in slumberland. I'm still willing to proceed with an RfC, and have begun drafting one. However, I wonder if a better interim solution to this situation would be to impose a short block on Marine69-71, so as to send a message that he needs to begin abiding by site policies both as regards to content and user behavior. My feeling is that his responses in this ANI are such that simply saying "go and sin no more" will not suffice. He has violated WP:CANVASS and has misused his tools. He needs to be sent a message that such conduct is not excusable, that his excuses and responses have been insufficient, and that this conduct will not be tolerated. I think a block of one month would have the desired effect. If we can't reach a consensus on that, then I will proceed with the RfC. But I think that this solution would result in less drama and less of a time-suck for all concerned. One note: I am strongly opposed to raising any emotional and personal issues on the part of anybody. Let's stick to Wiki policy please. ScottyBerg (talk ) 14:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Blocks are not used to send messages. I'd link to the policies, but (given that this simple things has been said multiple ways above and it hasn't sunk in) I don't think it would be helpful for me to do so. Any administrator who performed the block now would end up drawn and thirded. If there is no ongoing, immediate disruption there is no block. (Short of arbitration enforcement, but that's still just preventing more drawn-out disruption.) - Aaron Brenneman (talk ) 14:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC) I've notified Marine that the discussion has reopened, and will also try to notify other active participants in the discussion that it is no longer hatted. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC) I think it's arguable that Marine is not currently fit to hold admin tools, based on his personal behaviour. However, what part of policy does a BWilkins ←track ) 14:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC) (e/c, and per above) Such a block would be punitive, rather than preventative, and would therefore be inappropriate - you can't impose a block just to send a message. Either there is cause to expect further trouble from Marine69-71, sufficient to warrant a block now to prevent it, or there is not sufficient cause. For the former, I think you would need to show a pattern of behaviour, or some other evidence that this is likely to happen again. - Bilby (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC) ...and this says it all ( BWilkins ←track ) 14:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC) 1) Is there interaction with Floq other than the single paragraph on user talk? Because I'm uncomfortable with setting the bar that low for certification, and precedent setting if this is somehow an emergency is a bad idea. 2) Personally I am not that interested what Jimbo says, I say we proceed with less haste, more thought. - Aaron Brenneman (talk ) 14:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC) (ec) I was not aware of Jimbo's comment. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Just to post it here in full: I think that the "joke" wasn't funny and that he should hand in his tools and stand for RfA to get them back. That's what I think. Additionally, I find his manner of expressing himself in some of the links you showed me to be conduct unbecoming an administrator, yet another reason for him to hand in his tools and stand for RfA to get them back.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Re the previous comments: guess my feeling is that his responses indicate no intent to change his behavior. He refuses to accept responsibility and views himself as a victim. He has made that pretty clear. Also, as stated previously, Marine showed a lack of understanding of WP:OR, concerning a nearly identical issue in the same article, twice in a two week period, making it necessary for me to commence two successive content RfCs in which he received no support except from an editor he canvassed. So yes, I do believe that since he insists that he did not violate WP:CANVASS that he may violate that rule again, and may yet again abuse his tools, since he did so in the past and does not appreciate the gravity of what he did. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC) You know what? I'm out. Reopening the ANI thread, talks of blocking, someone else running to Jimbo's talk page, everyone interested in their pound of flesh more than in solving a problem... I want no part of it. I'm not going to co-certify anything. I was interested in seeing if we could take one problem and try to solve it like calm, rational grownups. It is obvious we can't. If this is just going to be bread and circuses, I've got better things to do. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Reviewing the entire discussion more thoroughly than I did last night, I think it is clear that if he does not at least recognize the problem, then it is likely to occur again. The danger to the encyclopedia and its contributors from an admin out-of-control in the expression of his feelings is so great, that a substantial preventative block is indicated;, should it fail & the behavior recur, then of course the remedy is arb com. The alternative I think is arb co directly, rather than an RfC--The discussion here should be sufficient evidence that we could not otherwise solve the problem. I point out that the statement that blocks are merely preventative does not fully express the reality of how they are used--besides stopping unacceptable behavior in an immediate way, they serve the more general and long-term preventative function of getting someone's attention to a problem in a more unambiguous fashion than words alone can do. If there is a positive response, unblock is always possible. DGG ( talk ) 15:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC) You know, yesterday when I hat'ed the original discussion in response to causa's summary, I was pretty supportive towards the "do something" perspective. I'm predisposed to be anti-authoritarian anyway, so I think that I'm naturally inclined to support "admin abuse occurred, and we should do something about it." However... the hysterics that have been posted here by a couple of users has completely turned me off to their cause in this matter. The over-the-top moral panic about a perceived threat of violence is a big part of that (Hans seems to have come to the mistaken conclusion that myself and others don't take such things seriously. What he fails to realize is how foolish he looks in making this such an issue, because it's obvious to this impartial observer that any implied threat of violence is just hyperbole. Hyperbolic threats should be dealt with, but this is an extreme over-reaction), not least because it's obvious that the user is a sickly old man. The fact that Marine69-71 is aged, which is something that I wasn't aware of until late last night, is a whole other aspect of this. I'm as supportive of enforcing proper admin behavior as the next guy, but the hounding (which is what this has turned into at this point) of an old man is just unseemly. A couple of you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Do you know my age? My medical condition? Whether I have all my limbs? All my organs? The condition of those organs? My ability to withstand the stress of seeing my initial on a tombstone? Not all editors like to talk about ourselves. I don't. To repeat what I said earlier: I am strongly opposed to raising any emotional and personal issues on the part of anybody. Let's stick to Wiki policy please. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC) I agree with the sentiments you've just expressed. However, I think it's also true that it is inappropriate for this user to be an administrator. The ideal solution is if he were to voluntarily hand in his tools, and that should be the end of the matter. DeCausa (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC) You know I'm really disappointed in this attitude that makes people think its OK to ignore problem just because a couple of people showed up tot he party and acted up. Either there is a problem with this user or there isn't. No amount of hysterics at AN/I by uninvovled parties should change your opinion about the matter of hand. I've heard people sharing this attitude talking about the mature thing to do. Well the mature thing to do is to look at the facts of a case on their merits and not to throw your hands up in the air because someone commenting on the situation is being hysterical. If anything is shameful it's this cop out that appeals to rationality and maturity while displaying none of it. When others are acting like children the mature thing to do is to ignore them, and not to throw a hissy fit and leave. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC) To summarize my thoughts on this whole situation: I feel that Tony was quite clearly canvassing, most certainly because the message was non-neutral, and also somewhat because of the selective nature of those he notified. I don't believe that Tony realized he was canvassing. The "Wall of Dishonor" that he created was despicable and I'm quite certain that Scotty was the one meant with the "S", I don't buy Tony's explanation. There was no overt death threat in that page, but it can at least be inferred. Tony used admin tools to fully protect a page (for 3 months!) where he was clearly in a content dispute, and he also involved his real-life son (another admin) in at least attempting to use admin tools at the page. Tony made it clear that he did not mean to threaten Scotty, and apologized for making mistakes. Tony should know better than to do any of those actions, and I'm of the opinion that his status as an administrator should at least be reconsidered. I don't see a reason to block Tony at this point. The death threat, if implied, was unambiguously retracted. He's not currently engaged in disruption. While his ignorance of canvassing shows him to be a poor administrator, it also makes a block seem punitive rather than preventative. The personal attacks on Tony are extremely despicable, and Hans Adler's more vicious comments were fueled at least in part by a desire to lash out at anyone who served in the Vietnam War. But now that they seem to have stopped, I suggest that we refocus once again on Tony's actions and what steps to take in response. I generally don't let Wikistress get to me, but this incident is a rare case where it actually has, partially because I'm having trouble supporting anyone in this dispute. Both sides have something to answer for. I will say that for the most part ScottyBerg himself hasn't been too terrible in terms of hyperbole, though he also hasn't done much to quell it either. If he had, I think it would help his case. -- Atama頭 16:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Excellent summary in your bulleted points. I concur. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC) I don't really view it as "my case." My involvement in Puerto Rico-related articles is insubstantial. My main focus is elsewhere, and my first involvement with this editor, as I recall, was when I nominated his autobiography for deletion. If an administrator has shown consistently poor judgment, I view that as a problem for the community, irregardless of whether certain uninvolved parties are not behaving properly. In my limited experience observing arbitrations and RfCs, I have yet to see a single protracted dispute where things didn't get out of hand. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Jimbo said on his user talk page, "no one enjoys helping with a dispute in which both parties have misbehaved". I think that sums up my comment above about why this issue has had such a negative affect on me. I'd like to repeat, though, that's it not really you, Scotty, who has been a problem. -- Atama頭 16:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, both "parties." But I am the only other "party." I have no control over what other people say. Anyuway, I view this case as an object lesson more than anything else, as indicative of a need for a better process de-sysopping administrators, so that it is less of a "trial" and more of an organic process. I wonder if term limits, rather than lifetime appointments, are the answer. This seems to be a recurrent problem. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC) I'm completely supportive of "a need for a better process de-sysopping administrators". As for the rest of it, I agree with the outline and the conclusion that Atama posted above. While I understand that all of this is frustrating... at this point, my advice is to just drop it and move on. If Tony is actually as bad as everyone here is making him out to be then we'll all be back here soon anyway, with relatively fresh perspectives. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC) I'd feel differently about this whole thing if he fessed up to targeting me and apologized to me for that offense, rather than abstractly or in the sense of "I'm sorry ypou feel that way." I feel that is a significant difference, in terms of the truthfulness we expect of an administrator and acceptance of responsibility. I disagree that he did not know that he was canvassing. Even after the policy was pointed out to him and he was asked to revert his talk page posts [96], he refused to revert and denied that he was canvassing[97]. If it was a "mistake", he would have reverted his posts. He never did. They're still on the user talk pages. I wasn't asking him for an apology or anything like that. I was asking him to undue his canvassing. He didn't. He has never acknowledged that he was canvassing, as best as I can tell from reading his responses. Therefore I do not feel, in light of all the above, that just walking away is a satisfactory resolution. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC) I completely agree with Griswaldo. This should be about finding the proper response to an administrator's actions and not about whether people have been acting in the most approriate way in this discussion. This is about whether an administrator has shown himself to not be trustworthy enough to keep his tools, so please don't tell me that nothing is to be done because of how people behaved here. It might make the process more difficult, but it does nothing to change the question. To those suggesting that if he really shouldn't have them we'll come back on this again, what will have changed? He could act just as badly, make people just as hysterical, and have frustrated the process because it does not fit in the exact scenario RfC envisions. I think there should be at least an RfC about this. So I wonder how that could happen. I view this as an ongoing issue. He continues to maintain the tools after seriously abusing his status. If I attempt to resolve it on his talk page by asking his to surrender them and we are unable to come to a resolution, could I then certify? If not, I really just don't see how the process is workable. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 17:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC) It was a big mistake to reopen this. --causa sui (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Yes it was a big mistake to reopen a thread that had been closed based on your rationale. Goes without saying surely. There is a problem here begging for a solution. The problem is much bigger than Tony and Scotty's particular issue. I have to agree with Jimbo when he suggests that Tony should give up the tools and go through RFA again, but clearly there no way to force him to do that. So what can/should be done? Would a block, especially in the sense described by DGG, have been appropriate if it had come sooner? How do we prevent this from happening again. I think everyone would benefit from finding a solution to that. I mean I think the we all agree that Tony's actions were not appropriate on a variety of levels. Wouldn't it be better to have a system that deals with that in a way other than this? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC) And now, apparently, it's time to lash out at the observers. "If you're not with us, you're against us", apparently. <roll eyes> — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Unbelievable. The response you all have been giving has of late mostly been directed at the observers (prominently at Hans). OK I made a snide remark about causa's, but most of my comment actually pertains to the issue that brought us here and has nothing to do with the observers. If you just want to roll your eyes at people what are you doing here? Some people think there is a problem that still needs to be solved. Those people have articulated what that problem is. Do you intend to engage the conversation or just roll your eyes?Griswaldo (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Hey, now, I don't think it's fair to paint Griswaldo's comments that way. I don't see that he's trying to put the blame on participants in this discussion. But I don't know that we can change the system here and now. We do have this proposal which seeks to give bureaucrats the technical ability to remove the adminship bit, which is a step in the right direction. I respect DGG and I'm certainly not against blocking an administrator in principle (having admins as unblockable would be a 'very bad thing) but I'd need to be convinced how a block is justified. I think the bigger concern is removing the admin bit, and I see no indication that Tony would relinquish it voluntarily. -- Atama頭 19:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Those are good points all of them. I've seen admins blocked, and I've seen it done successfully (without wheel-warring etc.). I'm sure we all have. I think there is a practical issue here. There seems to be a fair amount of hesitation to act in whatever way might be most appropriate when admins are brought to AN/I. This hesitation usually causes enough time to elapse that a block becomes, in most people's eyes, "punitive" as opposed to "preventative," and therefore no longer a viable option. I think the hesitation is in no small part due to the fact that we have a situation in which admins are supposed to police other admins. I don't think any one person is to blame for this when it happens, but I still think it poses a problem. Non admins looking on often see a situation in which they feel that had they done what the admin had done they'd have been blocked very quickly, within the window where its still "preventative." I am not sure that this will ever change until we have non-admins dealing with these types of issues, unless someone has some other creative solutions.Griswaldo (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC) I will say, for myself, that I truly believe that if Tony were not an administrator I would still not block him. If anything, his status as an admin makes his actions even worse and makes me more inclined to block, yet because I believe that Tony didn't know he was canvassing and he made it clear that there was no intended threat, I don't feel that I can block. His status as an admin isn't what's staying my hand. The only reason I can see to block would be to play chicken and try to bait him into unblocking himself, so we can say, "Aha, gotcha!" and then demand a de-sysop, but that's dirty pool that I won't be any part of. (I'm not accusing anyone of actually suggesting this, either, but that's the only reason I can see why a block would be in any way useful.) -- Atama頭 19:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC) eh... my indenting is/was slightly... off. Sorry about that. There were more recent comments made among the morass above (at least one directly at me) to which I was replying to more directly than Griswaldo's statement. The opening snide remark in his comment, which he's since stricken (kudos for doing that, by the way), certainly didn't help, though. And, incidentally, I do think that this represents a problem... if you want to know the truth, I think we ought to be discussing sanctions against some of the people who brought this here in addition to sanctions against the targeted user. None of that is going to happen now though, so we're right back where we were at approximately this point in time yesterday. It's time to "shit or get off the pot". Quit wringing your hands and open an RFC, or shut the hell up already. The same goes for the admin meta-issue. Start a discussion about it on the VP or open an RFC page, already. Hemming and hawing here on AN/I about "oh my, what in the world can we do!?!??!!!!!" just wastes everyone's time. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC) @At Ohms. You act like someone forced you to participate in this thread and is forcing you to continue to participate. As for sanctions against those who brought this here surely you misspoke? Only Scottyberg "brought this here." You really want to seek sanctions against him for making a legitimate complaint or did you mean some of the people who have commented on the issue? If so then you'd be a good example if you took your own advice, "shit or get out of the pot." I'm not "hemming and hawing" or "wringing my hands," I'm trying to make a point while the issue is fresh. You don't agree. Good for you. @Atama. I don't agree about that being the only use of a block. Before getting banned from the project for repeated bad behavior users get blocked, usually in a succession of longer and longer blocks as the behavior repeats itself. Those blocks serve a much greater purpose than simply "preventing disruption" in the moment. They establish a pattern of response that leads, in the end to being site banned. I don't know that what I describe is in any way reflected in policy, but it is quite clearly reflected in practice. Blocking admins for infractions can work in the exact same manner. It would only lead to de-sysopping down the road, when the block record shows that the community has had enough.Griswaldo (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC) He was military. When a commanding officer loses 100% faith in his command, he reigns his commission. Clearly, Tony has lost 100% of faith in his admin abilities by his fellow admins. Resign the commission, fess up, behave from this point forward, and everybody will move on with their lives as if nothing ever happened. You can't force apologies. ( BWilkins ←track ) 19:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Mahewa gave a thoughtful and considerate request on Tony's user talk page asking him to consider voluntarily resigning the tools. Tony said that he would think about it. I've given my support to the suggestion as well. I'd ask for people to please not pile on with this, as I expect it would only put Tony's back up because he'd feel (justifiably) like he's being lynched, but if we give him a chance to do the dignified thing then we might come to a peaceful conclusion to all of this. -- Atama頭 19:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)