Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

WP:RM Backlog

Resolved

 – Wrong place... --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested moves is in a pretty good backlog. If an admin or two could take a look, it would be appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 22, 2009 @ 02:11

This is for AN, not ANI. fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 16:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Gimmebot removing transclusions of GA reviews

Resolved

 – Time to move on. Gimmetrow has agreed not to remove the transclusions (with the caveat that he is no longer processing GAs at all). --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Gimmebot is removing transclusions of GA reviews from pages. There is no consensus to do so. Having the reviews on talk pages allows one to easily see the information related to the state of the article. I have contacted the bot operator, but he refuses to rectify the situation. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The review is link in the article history. Why does it need to be transcluded as well? Grsz¹¹ 20:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This way, people can easily check to see why the GA was passed (if it was a drive-by review, or if it was legitimate). Also, the bot operator should not have done this without the consensus of the Wikipedia community at BRFA. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The link is still available in the {{articlehistory}} template; if there's a problem locating the GA info, that is an artefact of the GA process, not the bot. If you can't find that info, that problem needs to be rectified within the GA process, or the GA process should simply no longer be part of articlehistory. Articlehistory was originally built to handle FAs, and it works perfectly for them; blocking the bot will stall the FA process. Rather than stop the bot, the options should be to correct the underlying problems at GA, or remove GAs from articlehistory, which will create a whole lot of talk page clutter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, once the review is done and over with I don't see what the advantage of transcluding it as well is. The review is still easily reachable. henrik•talk 20:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think many GA reviewers remove the transclusion once the review is over. I know that I do anyway; it's in the article history for anyone who's interested. The motivation behind transclusion is to involve as many editors as possible in the review, without depending on them becoming aware of a separate page. Once the review is over there's no point. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with the removal, though there may be procedural questions to be raised with regard to WP:BRFA/WP:WGA. Skomorokh 21:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not understanding Rschen7754's request. The link to the review is in the bottom center of the ArticleHistory template at the very top of the talk page - isn't that usually how it's done once the actual review is over? I've only been through few, a couple Norton reviews, and a Tim Richmond BLP review, but that's the way it was once everything was said and done. — Ched :  ?  21:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that job in any of the bot's requests for approval. I would also object to removing the transcluded reviews automatically, but I can see how someone could easily reach the conclusion that removing those reviews was uncontroversial. Hopefully the bot operator will stop the bot from doing that particular task until it gets approved. Give him/her some time to respond to your request and to this thread. Protonk (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with bots to be perfectly honest, but I did want to mention something that came to mind here. I remember a conversation about WP:SIG somewhere - in that conversation it was mentioned that transclusion does play a factor in server performance. I realize that 1 GA transclusion on a talk page does not equate to 50 or 100 sigs that do that, but I did want to mention it. I don't know if that has any bearing on this conversation, but I thought it may be something to consider. — Ched :  ?  22:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The operator has refused to do so - see the above link. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It might be better to bring this up at the Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard instead, where bot-operators and bot-approvers are more likely to see it, and it will be more clear what consensus is about it. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with above that once the GA Review is over there is no need to keep the transclusion - it is linked in {{ArticleHistory}} prominently at the very top of the talk page and can be easily found there. Cirt (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/GimmeBot 2 seems to be the task that allows the bot to work on the article review top business, in non-specific terms. I left a note at WT:GA. –xeno ^talk 02:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I might be too parsimonious, but I read that and didn't come away with the impression that removing transclusions was authorized in that request. TBH I didn't look at the first contributions to see what the authorization may have been based on. Protonk (talk) 03:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

yea, it's a liberal interpretation of the task. –xeno ^talk 13:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing the transclusion after a review is largely a matter of taste and there is no prescription - as long as the review is linked e.g. from ArticleHistory. However, keeping the review transclusion on the talk page after a review maintains high visibility for article editors wishing to improve an article in response to the review. I don't see any benefit for the encyclopedia in automatically removing the review when article editors may wish otherwise. This should be left to individual editors and reviewers, not a bot. Geometry guy 08:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The question is, what is to be done? The bot operator does not seem interested in rectifying the situation. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The rub

We have two issues here which are getting clouded. One issue is whether or not it is kosher to remove review transclusions. I'm going to go out on a limb (not much of one) and suggest that it is kosher to do so, just given the responses here. The other is whether or not a bot is allowed to do so without an authorization. We aren't a bureaucracy and we shouldn't let admittedly minor quibbles stymie editor participation, but we look rather a lot like a bureaucracy when bot-ops are concerned. We have policy and practice which reflects a community consensus to restrain bot edits prior to authorization rather than to bless those not reverted as good (in english, BOLD is for people, not bots). So I'm prepared to say that we should just open up another BRFA for the explicit task of removing transclusions. It will probably be a quick up and down approval.

In the absence of such an approval I'm going to ask that the bot operator stop removing GA review transclusions from pages. If they don't stop in 24 hours or start the process of getting approval in 24 hours I'll block the bot. Protonk (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

GimmeBot has been processing all FA process tranclusions into articlehistory for well over two years, and GAs almost all long. The transclusions are not removed; they are linked in to articlehistory. If this isn't working correctly at GA, that is an artefact of the GA process, not the bot. In the FA process, it's clear; perhaps the GA process needs to address the root problems, whatever they may be. But blocking a bot based on inaccurate information about the problem will not help the FA process, which depends on the bot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Geometry guy has it about right. Whether or not to remove the transcluded review is a decision for the reviewer and/or interested editors, not one that a bot ought to be making. So I agree with your blocking proposal. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"BOLD is for people, not bots.". That's a good line to remember when discussing 'bot behavior. --John Nagle (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like there's an issue at GA, that it's not clear when a review is finished. In the FA process, it is clear; this is an artefact of the GA process that needs to be addressed, and not by blaming the bot operator. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's very clear when a review has finished. If it were not, then Gimmetrow's bot wouldn't be able to delete the transcluded review. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• When did the bot start removing the GA review transclusions from talk pages? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • • The bot does not remove GA reviews; it adds them to articlehistory. GimmeBot has been building articlehistories for several years. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
      • The bot has recently begun to remove the GA review which is transcluded on the talk page; it removes the transclusion, which there has been no agreement that it should do. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • It was pretty recent - unfortunately, the only way to definitely know may be looking through the diffs. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I am not sure if this is what you are talking about. When the bot puts the GA review in article history, it is no longer is clickable. That is, clicking on GA reiew and date in the article history no longer brings up the GA review. This is confusing, as in the past a click would bring up the GA review just as it does the FAC review. Also, it this problem related to the fact that the GAN backlog report is no longer being updated? —Mattisse (Talk) 14:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

      The latter issue is completely independent (a different bot and bot operator). Geometry guy 21:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

      It is not true that reviews are no longer clickable; the link is in articlehistory. If links become unclickable, that is an arteface of the GA process, not the botification into articlehistory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Based on the additional comments above, I agree that the bot should not resume editing until these concerns are addressed. (I do note that neither the bot nor its op have edited recently, so a block may be unnecessary.) –xeno ^talk 21:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow runs the bot a couple of times a week, I believe. It does a lot of work for FAC, as well as doing article history and GA updates. Geometry guy 21:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

If the bot isn't editing, then I have to consult with others as to whether they are available to help with the manual work so that I can promote/archive FAC today as planned. This is another example of the unfortunate effects of illformed opinions at AN/I from editors who aren't familiar with the processes. I don't look forward to closing and botifying all of today's FA promotions and archivals myself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The way I understand it, bot runs can continue for FAC, as long as Gimmetrow is willing. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well this is a wonderful waste of time and effort. If you really think it necessary to fill out the brfa forms in triplicate for this task, you could have done so yourselves. I do not agree that bot policy requires it, but if you do, you might want to do something about certain editors doing controversial jobs in article space. (However, I would suggest that some of the admins who've commented above should read the bot policy again before they consider enforcing it.) I've been removing these transclusions for about a year as part of tidying up banners and talk pages. At some point, months ago (at least before January 2009), I added it to the code to avoid making two edits. I've been for the last two years now maintaining various parts of the GA process, including fixing all sorts of problems these transclusions cause. Commonly, they are not linked properly in the {{GA}} template, and when an article is moved, the transclusions sometimes become redlinks. Given the unending problems that nobody else seems interested in fixing, and the nothing-but-grief I get for doing this, the solution here is obvious. I'll keep doing FAC, and everyone can thank Rschen7754 for volunteering to do all other talk page template and related work from now on. Gimmetrow 00:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Stupendous: your attention is needed to continuing to build articlehistories (as you've been doing for well over two years now) and is appreciated at FAC and FAR. Of course it's troubling that few people commenting on the issue seem to have clue about everything the bot does, and the need for it, in terms of building templates into articlehistory to eliminate talk page clutter, without losing anything. Does this mean that when a FAC is botified into articlehistory, GA will no longer be included in articlehistory? Or that articlehistory errors will increase when non-bot editors now go back to try to retroactively add them? Unfortunate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't keep doing this forever. Good a time as any to stop. Gimmetrow 04:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably about time for you to stop, as you appear unwilling to listen to reason. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for contributing to a hostile environment. It is in part because of comments like these. which you have been making for months, that I have no incentive to help you. Some might even construe your comments as personal attacks, perhaps? I wonder how ethical it was for you to support a block based on a faulty argument, and without disclosing past history? Gimmetrow 10:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This entire thread highlights the insidious damage caused by AN and AN/I forums: editors commenting who have no background or understanding of the issues, costing Wikipedia a valuable resource, partly because of ignorance and misinformation about the process. If the solution is that GAs are no longer considered part of {{Articlehistory}} because there is no one to do the task, then that could work, except that I suspect that what will happen is that now other editors will try to add GAs to articlehistory, causing the error category to go bonkers and rendering *all* articlehistories a mess, after more than two years of work has gone in to building them correctly (thanks to Gimmetrow). It would be helpful to hear some voices of reason and moderation in here, from people who understand the issues, because this destruction of articlehistories will also affect FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with Gimmetrow (talk · contribs) and SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) on this one and quite frankly don't know why others are making such a big deal about it. When a GA Review finishes on an article I am working on, I generally remove the transclusion myself, and change it to a subsection on the talk page that has a link to the GA Review subpage with a note like "This article recently had a GA Review, which resulted in blah. You can read the GA Review at [link]." It really is not that hard. For all of the tremendous work that Gimmetrow (talk · contribs) does for this project and the {{ArticleHistory}} process, editors should cut him some slack, and more than that, be grateful for his help. Cirt (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

There's an ill-defined problem here which seems to be related to the way the GA process is handled. In FAs, it's clear when a review is finished, and a human being tells GimmeBot when to botify it into articlehistory. If the process isn't well defined at GA, that should be cleared up within the GA process, not by shooting the bot operator. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I asked the bot operator if there was any consensus for this. He indicated there wasn't any. I asked him to stop. He refused. ... --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Holy mother of pearl. An AN/I discussion about removing transcluded GA reviews from talk pages. Seriously? Was this such a big deal that it needed to be brought up? I think that everyone's time here could be better spent on reviewing FACs. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This didn't have to go to ANI. Gimmetrow could have simply fixed his bot. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Surely this thread is an example of moaning for the sake of moaning? The bot is doing a perfectly acceptable task, so why create issues when there are none? Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You miss the point - the GA transclusions are being removed from the talk pages. This was never agreed upon by anybody. This was never approved by BAG or the community. I do not oppose GimmeBot's work on FAC or even the rest of the things it does for GA - I just requested that the transclusions of the review pages be left in place. The operator refused to do so, and I thus brought it to ANI. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No, Jenuk is not the one missing the point. The transclusions are being linked in Articlehistory. If there's a problem with the links, that should be solved at the GA level-- this process works perfectly with FAs. This is a most unfortunate assault on a much useful bot and hard-working bot owner, who isn't thanked often enough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

However, that makes it more difficult for somebody to look at the reasons why the article was passed. As for "most unfortunate assault" - you seem to miss the point that I asked him to stop doing this. The only reason this is at ANI is because of his refusal. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

In other words, this is at ANI because an editor did not cave to your demands.... Gimmetrow 01:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't you think that's rather inflammatory language Gimmetrow? This is at ANI because you modified your bot without discussion, consensus, or authorisation, to remove transcluded GA reviews from article talk pages. In other words you have brought this on yourself, and the resolution is clear. Stop doing it. Simple. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• What bothers me is that the GA link in article history is no longer clickable. It is not possible to access the review the way it was before. If there is any way to fix this, let us do it. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:New York State Route 293 is a typical page (and a page this thread is nominally about). What is no longer clickable? Gimmetrow 02:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

What a mess

If I could go back in time, I would change some things about this thread's development. Since I can't, I'll try to salvage what is left (the issue is probably resolved so barring some new flare up another editor can archive this after a little while).

This is, as people have noted, a pretty minor issue. One whose core may not have been too contentious to many of us. The path that it took was unfortunate. Gimmie and Rschenn could have agreed to disagree, resolved their differences personally, or called in someone from the bot noticeboard to attempt to figure a low scale solution. They didn't. We can't change that. For whatever reason, when faced with a resounding "no", Rschenn chose to come here. Those of us who lurk on these boards (or make it known quite publicly that they do not lurk here) tend to see that move as a rash escalation or a declaration of war. We have to remember that for 90% of the folks on wikipedia, this is the place you come to when there is a dispute which needs to be resolved. Never mind that it is labeled "not dispute resolution" and has a litany of signs and a small fellow with semaphores waving editors off to RS/N, WQA and what-not. People find themselves in a seemingly intractable situation and they come here for some help. Outcomes may allow us to judge that a poor choice but it doesn't seem to feed back that way.

TL;DR for the last paragraph: the issue is here now, so we had two options. Punt it or deal with it. I had hoped that my decision to push off the actual decision on transclusion (which seems to the narrowly in favor) and focus on the issue of bot approval would give us an easy out (just get a BRFA for the job) and not send the complainant packing. Evidently that's not how it was interpreted.

What I don't like is paragraph after paragraph of invective and bile directed at any editor who either frequents these pages or who doesn't display sufficient deference to featured content work. SG, you and gimmie and ED and all you folks who promote, watch over and copy edit FAs have contributed more to this place than I ever will. But that doesn't give any of you the right to belittle editors and it certainly doesn't give you a whole lot of ammunition to claim that Rschenn is damaging content by staking out a position. So please don't. Protonk (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked Ikip for canvassing

{{Resolved}} Blocking admin recused, no consensus that Ikip had violated canvassing rules, Ikip unblocked. --Abd (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Block review

Resolved

 – Unblocked; see next section.

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've blocked Ikip (talk · contribs) for AFD canvassing, most recently in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia Lewis (10th Kingdom). I invite review. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Where was he canvasing at? Aren't you suppose to post a few links to prove your point? Dream Focus 10:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Was it just that one area? Where he mentioned something was at the AFD, at two other articles on characters from the series that were up for deletion as well recently? When delitionists make their rounds, nominating everything from a particular series at once, those involved in one should be made aware of the similar debates, since its basically the same thing usually anyway. In this case character articles from a series were all nominated for deletion. Dream Focus 10:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Ikip has long made a practice of pushing the boundaries of WP:CANVASS, and makes a regular practice of linking AFDs to favorable venues. His article talk contributions speak for themselves. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC) And another related article was up for AFD three months ago, but other than that only the one article was on AFD. That's not "character articles from a series[..] all nominated for deletion" or "delitionists mak[ing] their rounds". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC) AMiB - as a deletion-minded editor you are not unimpartial and not uninvolved. You shouldn't be the blocking party here. Ikip should be unblocked immediately by you and discussion and consensus achieved. Okay, you didn't comment in this AfD but your views are pretty obvious on the matter. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC) This attitude is disturbing to me. It gives anyone who villifies their opposition a shield against criticism or censure by that opposition, because obviously that villification is the only reason they'd act, right? Ikip has been warned and warned and warned, by a variety of editors and admins, about various probes of the limit of WP:CANVASS, and continues to constantly advertise AFDs, policy discussions, and many other discussions to favorable venues. My stance here has been consistent. The canvassing is a problem. It needs to stop. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Use of such shields amount to attempts to change the subject off the problematic behaviour. In many case it should be view as gaming the system. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Were the rules of WP:canvassing broken? Was it not a Friendly notice, which is allowed? There was Limited posting AND it was Neutral in the announcement, AND Nonpartisan, AND had Open transparency. If you believe someone has violated a rule, then you should discuss it here with others, and let the editor defend himself, before taking such an action. Dream Focus 10:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC) (ecx2)I'm missing something here. This is the only edit (of two in total by Ikip) to that deletion discussion, which appears to come firmly under the heading of Wikipedia:CANVASS#Friendly_notices (if even that, since WP:CANVASS is more relevant to user talkpage edits than article talkpages). I also see you didn't get round to placing any warning that you'd blocked Ikip, nor did you mention on their talkpage the existence of this thread (I've now rectified that omission). Tonywalton Talk 10:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC) I can only do so much at once. I left a note at his talk page regarding the block immediately after blocking, then invited ANI review, then replied to DF at the same time you put a notice on his talk. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Your edit says nothing about a block. Tonywalton Talk 11:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC) I don't think it was going to be unclear that he was blocked, what with the big "You have been blocked!" thing whenever he tries to edit. However people end up feeling about the block, hairsplitting about the wording of a block notice doesn't particularly interest me. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC) I'm afraid I don't see it as tangential. Blocking someone unilaterally, without any apparent consensus, failing to warn them of it in a polite (or indeed any) manner previously, then taking it here without having the courtesy to mention it to them are what I might call unacceptable behaviour rather than hairsplitting, and do interest me. This is hardly conduct likely to encourage editor to modify their behaviour. I agree with others here; this is not a good block. Tonywalton Talk 11:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Two issues here. First, this pattern of canvassing isn't new. He's been warned about it both here and on his talk page, most recently over the whole WP:ARS recruitment fiasco and similar "FYI" posts for WT:FICT. Second, I was busy considering my first reply here when you linked the ANI thread on his talk page; I didn't even get a chance. I am done discussing the latter point, but invite review of the former. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Whilst we obviously have major issues with canvassing and votestacking on AfD and the Article Rescue Squadron, this isn't really a good block. Not so much because you're involved, but he hasn't really caused mass disruption. If he'd spammed a lot of editors with a partisan message then fine, block away, but a few editors (even if it's known they'll probably contribute in a certain way) with a "FYI" message? A stiff warning would've been better here. However, AMIB is absolutely right that the disruption emanating from certain quarters of the ARS (which has now moved into projectspace) needs to stop. Black Kite 10:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Agree with above. Testing the limits of WP:CANVASS is not forbidden, breaking it is. If your only reason for blocking him is that he did not in fact break the rules, then the block was wrong. As this discussion shows, there is no such consensus that his actions were block-worthy and you should have considered proposing a block here rather than just doing it. Even if you are not biased against this editor, your past history and your actions may be seen as such - something you should have avoided by allowing the community to make that decision. There was no need for any rush in blocking ikip and thus there was none for you to do it. Regards SoWhy 10:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC) I want to avoid making this into a whole ARS versus the world mess. I still believe in the basic good work of WP:ARS. I don't want blocking Ikip to be used by anyone as "This is an example of the disruption WP:ARS is causing!" nor do I want to see unblocking him used as vindication of misuse of that project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC) The point is not what you want but how people will react. You have to admit that you were involved with this editor in the past and that you occupy a philosophy on the other end of the spectrum. Both is not forbidden but both will definitely lead to such associations, whether you like it or not. The point is this: If you know about those things and there is no real need for a block to stop current disruption, you should always bring it here before blocking, not afterwards. Even the (unfounded) suspicion that an admin might use his/her tools to sanction an editor who they have difficulties with is very damaging for the trust the community has for their admins. Again, noone is saying you did it because of that but some comments below (like Cameron Scott's) prove that this is definitely how some people will view this and you should have considered this before taking action against ikip. Regards SoWhy 15:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC) AMIB's issue seems to be with the following diffs [1] [2] [3]. But these were postings related article talk pages, which are acceptable and in fact encouraged by AfD guidelines. Quote: "Place a notification on significant pages that link to your nomination, to enable those with related knowledge to participate in the debate." The notifications were neutral, and could have been picked up by editors wanting to help merge just as much as !vote keep. Ikip also informed users on the AfD of his notices [4] as encouraged by guidelines. It seems abundantly clear to me that Ikip should not have been blocked, and certainly not unilaterally by AMIB. the wub "?!" 10:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC) I support the block for the reasons given by AMIB. Verbal chat 11:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC) No real comment about this particular block (no time to look into it), but I had email about Ikip and canvassing this morning as well as seeing this on my watchlist. Which is just to say that there is at least one other situation going on right now where he's been accused of inappropriately canvassing. This might be worth having a peek at as well, at least according to one of the people who have contacted me with concern about this issue. --SB_Johnny | talk 11:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC) What if the nominator did not inform anybody of the AfD discussion? It is suggested in WP:BEFORE / WP:AFDHOWTO to contact other editors or projects. Can someone be blocked for doing what the nominator should have done as part of the nomination? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 12:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Support block for inappropriate canvassing, per original arguments and additional citations given. I see someone brought up the "deletionist" bullshit already; so early! seicer | talk | contribs 13:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Support the block since some seem to be trying to divert the attention to AMIB's role in the action rather than why it was done. David D. (Talk) 13:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose, so long as we're !voting. 1) WP:AFDHOWTO explicitly states "Do not message editors about AfD nominations because they support your view on the topic. This can be seen as votestacking. See Wikipedia:Canvassing for guidelines. But if you are proposing deletion of an article, you can send a friendly notice to those who contributed significantly to it and therefore might disagree with you.". The ONLY diffs I've yet to see cited, [5] [6] [7] (it seems the blocking admin either cannot or will not provide any of his/her own) consist entirely of "FYI" and a sig. Seems perfectly in-line with stated policy. I also note, with some interest, that there is no block notice on Ikip's page. Is AMIB ashamed of letting non-cabal members of his actions here for some reason...? Snarfies (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC) I was the one who brought this to a wider noticeboard for review. Give me a break. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Does anybody know already why Ikip has been blocked? Not that it would change anything, but at least it would light up things a bit... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 13:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC) My main objection is that AMiB has used admin tools in a dispute where he has been an involved party. See Wikipedia:UNINVOLVED#UNINVOLVED - this is not good. AMiB, how do you define that you are an uninvolved admin in this situation? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC) How am I involved? I've outlined a pattern of problematic behavior, each time ending up in a general warning to Not Do This Again. To my knowledge Ikip hasn't canvassed any discussion I've had a large part of except WP:FICT, where he was canvassing editors who agreed with me that it was a bad idea. The only involvement I have with Ikip that wasn't chiefly in agreement with him is saying "Stop canvassing, dude" and being attacked for it. The idea that attacking an admin who warns you to stop doing something disruptive "involves" them to the degree that they cannot act to stop you from persisting in that disruptive conduct is baffling to me. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC) I think Casliber has an obligation to define exactly how he believes A Man In Black is an involved admin. Certainly it wouldn't be reasonable to argue that admins are only permitted to act against editors that share their personal philosophy about exclusionism/inclusionism. I'm not a big fan of this particular block, as I've shared on AMIB's talk page. Not being a fan of this block doesn't mean I think that AMIB has violated WP:INVOLVED, though.—Kww(talk) 14:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC) This diff merits discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC) It seems the definition of whether people think you are involved or not depends on whether they agree with you. AMIB actions were correct, this is gaming and canvassing and should be stopped. This whole involved/univolved thing is tedious. AMIB brought it here for discussion, so attacks against him should stop. Verbal chat 14:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC) AMIB failed to provide evidence supporting the block. Editors should not have to guess. If AMIB doesn't have time to to a block properly, AMIB shouldn't do it. The notices we guessed were the basis were proper, allowed, or even encouraged. Ikip was not violating WP:CANVASS. AMIB was acting outside community consensus here, and that some editors seem eager to support this block goes to show.... Because concerns were raised about action while involved, AMIB should have immediately recused, allowing any other admin to unblock, if AMIB wasn't willing to unblock directly. Because there is clearly no consensus for block, and blocks should represent consensus, and because there has been adequate discussion here to make this clear, User:Ikip should be immediately unblocked by any neutral admin who comes across this discussion. --Abd (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC) On the fourth point, isn't that what coming here for review means? I don't much interact with the bureaucracy of blocking. If I need to say so outright, then any admin can reverse my administrative actions if they feel that they are improper. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Thank you, AMIB, that makes it very clear, and could avoid further disruption. --Abd (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC) As for reversing it myself, I'm torn; the opposition is "This was not a good reason to block," the support is "Despite that this user is obnoxious and this just happens to be on the inside of the technical line." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC) You have no obligation to unblock, unless you conclude that the block was in error. Let me suggest that it was, because the actions Ikip took that you considered canvassing were actions that are routinely accepted as proper or even desirable, even if the effect might be some differential participation at the AfD. He wasn't just "on the inside of the technical line," he was doing what is allowed or even suggested. If you unblock, this resolves this whole disruptive dispute, in one stroke. Hence it would be laudable. --Abd (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose: I've looked at the diff's and I don't see what's the problem with Ikip's notifications. The notices were neutral in content and at related talk pages. Canvassing is allowed and "votestacking" seems to be thrown around a lot without any evidence. Like Casliber, I'm troubled that the admin my not be completely uninvolved in these articles. With that kind of power, AMIB should have deferred to another neutral admin for review or at least solicited comment before taking unilateral action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattnad (talk • contribs) 14:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose Improper due to the previous involvement of User:A Man In Black who has been stirring up trouble about this for days now. There was no breach of WP:CANVASS and a block is not an appropriate response in any case as blocks are not supposed to be punitive. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC) I've criticized Banjeboi for proposing the modification of a template to solicit people directly to a deletion discussion when it was originally intended for something else. I don't recall Ikip even being involved in that discussion. If you mean questioning whether Ikip's canvassing of various discussions strictly to favorable audiences is a good idea, well, you caught me. Damn me for asking for input first. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC) As an utterly neutral and uninvolved party, I am very troubled by the way this discussion is going about, which is more like a witch-hunt than anything else. I would like to review the unblock and cannot support an unblock until things calm down so that the evidence can be reviewed properly. If you make a claim that an admin is involved, you need to provide diffs first - asking the admin to prove how he is uninvolved first is absolutely unreasonable. Interim support. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC) The possible problem with involvement has been resolved by AMIB through his explicit recusal, so it is moot, leaving only the issue with the block itself. NCMV, your comment criticized the "witch-hunt" against AMIB, but then supported (interim) the block without giving a reason. Given that the stated reason for the block was defective, as there was no canvassing, but only quite proper, even desirable neutral notice to articles under AfD, I'd think you could agree that unblocking is appropriate now. --Abd (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC) In striking my vote, I neither endorse or oppose the unblock as I am still asking questions to both administrators to satisfy my concerns over how this was handled broadly; this includes questions over the initial block. But this does not detract from you inappropriately closing this in the absence of allowing discussion of the subsequent unblock; I note that the unblocking admin appropriately reverted your closing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Support block It's just part of a pattern of behaviour by members of the Article Canvassing Squadron - look at the recent discussion at the project page, it's a political focused inclusionist activist group and should be closed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC) This is not the kind of support I am looking for. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Yes and? You must have mistaken me for some form of robot or drone. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Then let me clarify. This accusation has nothing to do with why I blocked Ikip, and I would not want to see him blocked based on this accusation, which I believe is false. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC) I have to support what Ncmvocalist has said. We should review the block, not who made the block. A decision is either right or wrong, it does not change depending on who made it. Chillum 14:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC) AMIB is an involved admin deep in the inclusionist/deletionist wars, and involved admins are explicitly forbidden from using their tools. AMIB at this point has no more standing to use his tools to process AFDs, or anything related to them. He needs to respect that, or the next time he's probably on a short train to RFC and then Arbcom. rootology (C)(T) 14:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Exceptional claims require exceptional justification. Either take this to the arbcom to have my admin bit removed over this, or strike it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Like I said, we are reviewing the block, not the admin. Either the block was correct or incorrect, who made it is not going to change that. I will not accept the idea that the same decision can be correct when one person makes it and incorrect when another makes it. Either it is a correct decision or it is not. Chillum 14:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict)Hear hear. I agree. Re the ARS: If there are problems with the ARS (and there may be, or with a subset) then that is a separate matter and should be brought up elsewhere. Verbal chat 14:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Up to now we still don't know the reason for the block. We're still guessing. Therefore we can't discuss the block. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 14:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Kay, I will elaborate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Ikip has made a practice of pushing the limits of WP:CANVASSING. At every opportunity, he advertises any contentious discussion with which he is involved to any sympathetic party (most infamously here, advertising an otherwise-neutral project on hundreds of article talk pages of people with "inclusionist" userboxes), not respecting any requests that he desist save when they are enforced, and following only the letter of the rules. When anyone calls him on this, he goes on the attack, describing them as deletionists or devoted to destroying article content. However, he's aware that soliciting only those who agree with him is wrong (criticizing Ryan4314 for it here), but continues to walk the line any way he can. I blocked him because I do not feel that Ikip will respect any sanction that is not enforced. I respect that the reason I blocked him in this case may have been within the letter of the rules; the wording of the rules shifts often enough that I'm not always 100% up to date. Nevertheless, I feel that this is a pattern of disruptive behavior that needs addressing. Diffs forthcoming. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC) What diffs? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ikip That's all we need. How long ago was this blockable canvassing? Also, read my note to Chillum. You as an admin have zero standing or authority to levy this block as one of the deepest "deletionist" partisans on this site, just as anyone deeply involved in the squadron would have zero standing or authority to undo it. You must undo this block and not do such a thing again, or you will not be long for your tools once the Arbitration Committee sees what you're about. All that aside, blocks are preventative. Note: that's preventative for Wikipedia's protection, not your political inclinations. You pretty much missed the goal as far right as you can on this one, for being involved. rootology (C)(T) 14:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Edit conflicting with me trying to edit them in isn't gonna get them here any faster. Also, I'm adding diffs for my assertions; are you? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Unblock. There is hardly ANY canvassing here, and cross-posting a note that is just the AFD itself plus the text "FYI" to a tiny handful of talk pages is not canvassing or disruptive to the AFD process, which already has too few people looking at it. I would unblock myself, but I don't think I'm a totally uninvolved editor in regards to Ikip. In regards to inclusionism/deletionism, I'm 100% uninvolved (just look at how many AFDs I've begun and I believe I'm about 66% delete, the last time I looked at the stats). rootology (C)(T) 14:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC) The more I think about it, I am uninvolved with this editor. We just used to chat back in 2006, and then he literally leaped down my throat and went off on me, on the worst terms imaginable with zero faith in me back then, and then basically said "Welcome back, congratulations," last year. Based on the zero evidence preceeding the block (involvement aside, we do NOT block for long-past or even days-past actions) in Ikip's contributions, I have unblocked. Any uninvolved admin may reblock that's not one of these people in the fights if required. rootology (C)(T) 14:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC) I think you need to carefully justify the accusations you have made against AMIB. Being an exclusionist doesn't render him impotent when dealing with inclusionist editors, just as being an inclusionist doesn't render one impotent when dealing with exclusionists. If you believe that AMIB is so deeply involved with Ikip that his behaviour is skirting with Arbcom sanctions, I suggest that you provide evidence to support that belief.—Kww(talk) 15:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Support block - we give far, far too much leeway to those who game the system, and should look particularly dimly upon those who have been warned multiple times before to stop doing it. We should also look extremely dimly upon those who show up to these sorts of discussions only to throw around ad hominem 'deletionist' or 'inclusionist' insults--for make no mistake, when one editor calls another either of those things, it is almost always intended as an insult. //roux   15:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose block 3 friendly neutral notices, placed exactly where and how they are supposed to be as per guideline, do not constitute canvassing. Had there neen 20 notices, there might be a case. But 3?? No consensus over the 3 edits was asked for or reached. Due process was not followed. Pique over perceptions of past edits or edit history do not justify lack of process in this one instance. Although Ikip might have pushed the guidelines a bit in the past, in this case he did no such thing... only upset an editor who does not agree with his editing style. Bad form. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Rationale for my unblock 1st: Ikib blocked by AMiB on 10:18, April 26, 2009. AMiB for starters has no authority or right to block for anything related to the Article Rescue Squad, Deletionism, or Inclusionism, or anything like that, barring vandalism, as one of the major players on the "Deletionist" side. This would be like User:DGG or another user widely perceived to be on the 'other' side doing likewise. We don't allow politics in the use of admin tools, and I encourage AMiB to never do this sort of thing again, as it's a short road to RFAR and losing his bit. 2nd: Wikipedia space: Nothing for 72+ hours. Article talk: Nothing for 72+ hours. User talk by Ikip: Nothing for 72+ hours. Wikipedia talk by Ikip: Nothing for 72+ hours. Again, any demonstratably uninvolved admin can freely reverse my unblock, I waive all wheel warriness, etc rootology (C)(T) 15:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC) A bit more discussion here. rootology (C)(T) 15:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC) I'm disappointed that you didn't address any of my comments to Casliber on this subject while still accusing me of being involved, but I respect unblocking due to a lack of a pressing issue to prevent. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC) The first part of your argument is a real stretch, and it's part of the reason why disruptive inclusionists and exclusionists seem to operate under a protective shield. Admins on the same side aren't inclined to block, admins on the opposite side use an extreme interpretation of WP:INVOLVED to justify inaction, and admins uninvolved in the issue at all are so tired of the mess that they don't poke their nose into it. AMIB has not participated in the discussion in question, and seems not to be involved with Ikip except for repeated warnings about canvassing and near-canvassing. Your second argument is that after having been warned by an admin multiple times about behaviour, the editor does it again, and the admin didn't catch it fast enough? I think arguments against the block based on Ikip not having technically violated the canvassing rules warrant discussion, and I can respect those. Arguing that no exclusionist can ever block an inclusionist or vice versa means that we might as well give up and split the project in two.—Kww(talk) 15:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Not at all--just report the issues here, and the uninvolved folks can sort it out. The same as anything else. :) rootology (C)(T) 15:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Nice theory ... in practice, they just turn into squabbles that people tune out, like this one: giant squabblefests with one group of admins afraid to act, another group uninclined to act, and everyone so eager to blame it on inclusionism/exclusionism that they don't evaluate the situation and judge whether the underlying behaviour of either party warrants action.—Kww(talk) 15:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC) It wouldn't be the first time I've been accused of being overly idealistic. rootology (C)(T) 15:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Probably 90% of active admin are uninvolved in fiction, and at least half do other things than participate in deletion/inclusion debates at all. But they're willing to help out in other areas as neutrals, just as I ewill comment here on things i don't otherwise actively work on. I don't primarily hunt down vandals or copyvio or BLP violations (unless I happen to come across them) but if there's a dispute about it, I can look. That's what this board is for. DGG (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC) But that's not what happens on this board. Hell, we are on AN/I right now and look what is happening. Admins and editors are sorting neatly into groups based on their preferences and those without preferences are either ignoring the issue or clucking their tongues at what a shame it is to have disputes like this. At what point are we allowed to just say that treating wikipedia like a battleground is OK as long as your area of advocacy is notability of fictional subjects? Because that's what it looks like from here. Protonk (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC) No accusation was made, Root. He just said that in practice the model doesn't work. Most of the cases do tend to fall right along the lines that Kww mentioned. Protonk (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC) I see no reason to re-impose this block, so endorse. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 'Nuff said I don't think A Man In Black blocked for political reasons or out of bad faith, but perhaps he should have sought community opinion before the fact, rather than after the fact. I don't think Rootology should have been the one to do the unblocking since he is to some extent involved, but I don't think he unblocked in bad faith either. FWIW, I would have unblocked if Ikip had requested unblocking via template. The fact that he didn't is rather odd, but that's neither here nor there. Both admins involved here were a bit quick to hit the buttons, but I don't see any reason to think that either were being quick out of malice or without a belief that they were taking correct action. --SB_Johnny | talk 16:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Pattern of problematic adminship? This is not the first time A Man In Black has blocked someone with whom he was involved and which garnered the community's scrutiny. See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive489#Review_of_A_Man_In_Black.27s_block_of_Jtrainor. Given this admin's extensive block log for edit warring as well, I strongly urge the community to consider to what extent adminship has been abused by this editor when dealing with opponents per WP:INVOLVED. After all, don't we as a community occasionally consider desysopping after two bad blocks? We have at least two questionable blocks as well as a long history of edit warring. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Indeed. A block that ended a long-running case of brinksmanship over copyright is a clear example of a a pattern of inappropriate blocks. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC) I've seen nothign wrong with AMiB's actions as an admin, and I've been on the wrong side of it before. Knock it off. One dubious block in which the major opposition is a direct attack on AMiB's 'wikipolitics' is hardly anything, and another lbock which was reviewed is also not enough. ThuranX (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC) No, desysopping is only handled by Jimbo Wales and Arbcom, and if the administrator elects it, WP:RECALL (which AMiB does not), so either User talk:Jimbo Wales or WP:RFAR. MBisanz talk 17:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC) AMIB has a history of edit warring, and then blocking people to get his way. I can't say I'm terribly surprised he would misuse his tools in other venues as well. Jtrainor (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Jtrainor was invited to rehash his six-month-old dispute over copyright with me by Ikip here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Which is irrelevant, as I regularly browse and comment on WP:ANI (as my contrib history will show) and thus would've noticed this eventually anyways. Ikip just sped the process up a bit. Jtrainor (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC) No. Ikip leaving a note regarding this ANI post on the talk page of an editor favorable to his particular position isn't relevant at all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Having likewise been blocked over opinions of content issues during a dispute, I likewise believe that A Man In Black has gone above and beyond his station in certain instances. Perhaps not material for an RFAR, but nevertheless Jtrainor should not be singled out as a unique "problematic" case - this has happened before and to other people. MalikCarr (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC) For example, MalikCarr, at the same time and for the same cause as Jtrainor, also here rehashing that same six-month-old dispute. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Ikip didn't leave a note on Malik's page, however. Anyways, saying "it's old" is irrelevant when one is attempting to display a pattern of inappropriate behaviour. Jtrainor (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC) In addition to involved or at least questionable blocks of Jtrainor, MalikCarr, and Ikip, at least one other has come under scrutiny as seen at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive475#Edit_War_at_Now_Museum.2C_Now_You_Don.27t_.26_Request_for_review_of_actions. The revert warring mentioned there has actually occurred on SIX articles and not just the one discussed at ANI (I am surprised that hadn't been brought up yet at ANI): [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], and [13]. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC) This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. The only problem I see here is a bunch of editors with a vendetta. Such witch hunts look worse for the hunters than the so called witches. David D. (Talk) 22:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Care to provide some evidence for that claim? Protonk (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Self evident. David D. (Talk) 22:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC) When fully half of your entire edits to Wikipedia have been reverting content disputes with an admin, and three-quarters of your blocks from that same admin, you tend to take on a rather jaded perspective to the whole project. Incidentally, he's not referring to a dispute six months ago, but rather to a dispute that lasted six months, went through RFC and ARB, and still didn't really produce any firm conclusions. I'd argue that the recourse from that isn't a vendetta, rather simply seeking returns on great inequities. MalikCarr (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Self evident? Are you joking? No really, please provide some evidence for your sweeping claims. Protonk (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Read the whole thread here. A request for block review is brought here. It is was undone. There was no argument other than an agree to disagree conclusion. That should have been the end of the discussion but the whole thread goes off on mulitple tangents. Focus on the the big picture and keep content dispute to the article talk pages. David D. (Talk) 22:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC) I have read the whole thread. I don't see how this condenses to a content dispute and I don't see how going off on "tangents" offers evidence for your accusation that editors/admins here have been motivated by a vendetta. Perhaps you'd like to retract that accusation. Protonk (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Is the word vendetta your only problem? How about grudge? You really think this whole thread is only about the block in question? David D. (Talk) 23:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC) My main problem is the fact that editors are intent on abandoning AGF without any great cause to do so. I would hope that if you think AMiB is acting on a vendetta that you provide some evidence--evidence beyond the fact that he has brought Ikip's conduct here before and beyond vague hints at wikistance. I'm also well aware that this thread isn't just about the block in question. That's part of the problem. Protonk (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Actually I'm still waiting for the diffs that resulted in the block of Ikip in the first place. Did AMiB already provide them? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 23:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Man, I need a scorecard or something, this thread is turning into allusions to implications to veiled accusations of implied misdoing... - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Man, you need to just shut your damn yap and stop replying to every accusation :-). Just sayin. --SB_Johnny | talk 23:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

A question

To get things straight, is there now some sort of more expansive standard for involvement that I don't see in WP:UNINVOLVED applied to admins on one side or the other of a wikistance dispute--or more accurately, admins who have been characterized by third parties as being on one side or the other? Because if there is it better be written in policy that has some community consensus and if there isn't we better stop reversing blocks without speaking to the blocking administrator on the basis of this imagined new "recusal" framework.

More to the point, when we find this new raft of administrators who are neutral in every respect on every issue and who also have an interest in wading into these periodic shitstorms, please let me know. Protonk (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

first step is to ask here, not assume there isn't anybody. DGG (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

There is noone who is neutral on every issue but that's not needed anyway. You just need an admin who is neutral on the issue at hand and there are plenty of those. As DGG says, ask here before assuming that there is noone. Regards SoWhy 19:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If I could speak for Protonk, I think his point was that if the standard for being uninvolved comes down to whether the community views you as inclusionist or deletionist, we're in for trouble. Does the community see me as inclusionist or deletionist? I have no idea, nor do I really care. Could you find three editors who see me as deletionist? You bet -- I could probably even give you a list. Could you find three who see me as an inclusionist? Yes, absolutely. But if that means I could never block an editor over misbehavior at AfD, then I doubt you'll find any admin who could.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not being clear. I understand that help can and should be found on the admin boards. I'm just wondering why this apparent new standard for neutrality isn't written in policy anywhere. Protonk (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

(just woke up - need coffee but this important) There is no new standard here. We have a policiy on uninvolved and AMiB is way involved as a common player in the trenches at AfD on the opposing side to Ikip. This is patently obvious. Also it is especially important in greyer areas like the neutral wording of three notes to other uses. Rootology summed it up well above after I went to sleep last night. This is in no way a borderline case. Can you imagine if I blocked a deletionist for incivility? People would (rightly) point out my nonimpartial position. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You're an inclusionist? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Damn straight. yep. Unless on misinformation, then no. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Do you send me the membership of the mailing list, then, so I know who I'm too involved to censure?

I generally leave such labeling nonsense to the people who actually care about it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops)

In any event. WP:UNINVOLVED is about keeping administrators from using the tools to gain the upper hand in a dispute, I thought. I'm not actually in dispute with Ikip over anything, except that his conduct is inappropriate. I don't think I could honestly say that I agree with him on all points, or that I intend to go out drinking with him, but no block I could possibly make (save possibly an indefinite one) would ever silence his advocacy for article inclusion, nor would I want it to, nor would I meaningfully benefit from it.

If you genuinely thought that someone was being uncivil, then yeah, block them, be they deletionist, Republican, or Modovian separatist. Now, if you suspect that your evaluation is tainted by your personal feelings, sure, don't act, but administrators are trusted to use their judgement to evaluate a situation dispassionately.

Aren't they? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

But unfortunately an admin's judgment of being impartial can differ from what other users will see in a situation. As Casliber pointed out, this is probably not anything about deletionists vs. inclusionists but about your contributions which include a track record of debates on the opposite side to ikip. If any deletionist had made the block, I doubt we would have most of this discussion, it's just what happens if someone makes an administrative decision when they previously were in a content dispute with the same user. As a rule, I think admins should avoid taking administrative action against users who they were previously involved in a content discussion, even if they are not involved in the dispute which was reason for the action at hand. It would help avoid such accusations, at least a bit. Regards SoWhy 20:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, yeah. AMiB and dispassionate. I certainly wouldn't have thought of that adjective in describing some of your exchanges. OK, you weren't on opposite sides in this particular AfD, but there have been many of these exchanges - I have had them with you myself there. "I don't think I could honestly say that I agree with him on all points" is rather an understatement don't you think? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

That's nice that you picked on that aside, but you still haven't ascribed to me an ulterior motive that makes sense. Posit that I'm a complete blackguard, willing to do whatever I can to accomplish...something. It can't be to shut Ikip up, because he's going to be back in two days to argue to keep articles, just like before. It can't be to make him less convicted to prevent articles from deletion, because any persecution will only galvanize him. It can't be to strike some greater blow against article inclusion, since a fair few passionate self-declared inclusionists keep Ikip at arm's length. So whatever it is Villainous AMIB is out to do, he's doing it pretty badly by blocking Ikip and coming to ANI for review.

I'm not so much offended by the accusation of bad faith (I'm not so naïve as to expect that in a sufficiently large group that nobody will see evidence of bad faith) so much as I'm offended by the implicit accusation that I'm a villain and I suck at it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Your words not mine (re 'villain'). You are the one who has had some heated exchanges at AfD and has argued to delete in many. I am pointing out that you shouldn't use admin tools in AfD debates with someone on the opposite side. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The whole uninvolved admin bit is to keep admins from using the tools to gain some sort of advantage. The advantage I gain by blocking Ikip is... - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

...temporarily silencing someone of an opposing viewpoint whom you once proposed User:A Man In Black/Let's tape Ikip up in a box and mail him to the moon. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Silencing him from where? (And that was a joke about the silliness of citing clearly ridiculous proposals and essays. Clearly, "Note to self: Buy more stamps" was part of my plan to silence opposition.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait a second. So I'm trying to silence my opposition, based on a three-month-old, now-closed RFC where Ikip agreed with me? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Fabric hits the nail on the head. The problem with this nebulous, untwritten standard for involvement is that anyone can declare someone too partisan to render a decision. this isn't as simple as (as AMiB puts it) determining whether or not an admin has given him or herself the upper hand in a dispute with the tools. we are inventing some "meta-dispute" between "inclusionists" and "deletionists" whereby any admin who has expressed an opinion about content in any fashion can be ginned up to be party to this "meta-dispute". After someone has announced that said admin is party to the dispute, who are we to argue with them? AMiB has voted to delete things in the past and has (Gasp!) pulled the trigger and deleted things. But in the absence of some actual meta-dispute (note the lack of scare quotes) we have to be convinced that AMiB is so tainted by his prejudice that he will use the tools inappropriately.

so what is it? Is there some dispute on wikipedia that I am party to, despite not having voted in or closed and AfD for months? Where do I fit on the scale? who am I not allowed to block based on their stance? Because I want to know. apparently it is some community standard, long held, that I'm ignorant of. So clue me in. Protonk (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am convinced AMiBs participation here was wrong and gives the strong appearance of prejudice (regardless of motive). Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave aside sundry issues with that declaration and press on my key point. Who may take action? I note that you haven't pressed particularly hard to state that Ikip was on the straight and narrow. Presuming that he wasn't, who is allowed to block? Who is allowed to block and ask for review (as AMiB did here)? Who is allowed to block only after seeking review? Where is all of this written? Protonk (talk) 23:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, my opinion on the action (neutrally worded notes on 3 editor's pages), is that it was in a grey area. I note that alot of deleters will spend more time at AfD than alot of content editors and keepers, but that is a bigger-picture thing. Bakc to process - if I saw an editor which whom I was concerned there might be the perception of me being non-impartial, then I would ask here whether other admins thought it block-worthy. This happens fairly regularly here. If an action is genuinely blockable, other admins will concur and might do it themselves or give me the green light to do so. If it was an absolute no-brainer, eg editor is revelaed to be sock of banned editor, it is not such a big a deal as these grey areas above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"I note that alot of deleters will spend more time at AfD than alot of content editors and keepers, but that is a bigger-picture thing."strikes me as unrelated, but ok. Where is this standard for admin action written down? where, if I were just learning how to be an admin, would I look for guidance on the subject? I just want to answer that. Here I'm deliberately avoiding discussing the presumption that a meta-debate constitutes an involvement just as an actual article debate would. I'll concede that for the sake of argument. Protonk (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fairly simple. Have you and I been in content and/or policy disputes and/or DR escalations vs each other? If so, you and I have zero business or right using the tools on each other. There's a reason we have a thousand admins. If one of has been naughty, any one of them similarly uninvolved can take action if required. That's my standard, and I think that of most people. rootology (C)(T) 01:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to be rude, but I think it is even simpler. We have a standard for admin involvement at WP:INVOLVED. If no one here can point to some policy suggesting that the standard is much higher then we don't get to act as though it is. I mean, I agree with you that the ideal state is the invervening admin be neutral in all respects. But I'm not going out on a limb when I say that community practice doesn't being to approach this state as we have applied it here. To pick on two people, Stifle and Fut Perf both have clear, announced views on non-free image use. They have been involved in RfCs, content discussions, deletion debates, deletion reviews and so forth. Under this standard you propose, they would be unable to close an image deletion debate or block someone for uploading copyrighted material. How is that workable? what happens when the only people interested in working the trenches have a POV on the subject? Protonk (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there will be borderline cases. This isn't borderline. I admit I'm surprised to see it, for I regard AMIB as one of the most level headed among the strong opponents of Ikip's position--AMIB and I have had useful discussions over the issues involved, on my talk p. and elsewhere. DGG (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that we should dredge up the fact that being a fooist doesn't say anything about behaviour (for example, DGG and Cas are really nice chaps despite the fact I disagree with them sometimes) and being a barist doesn't automatically make you involved. That said, as much as Ikip irritates me, this block was more punitive rather than preventative. As rootology pointed out, he was dormant for two days prior. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, my heart is inclusionist and my head is deletionist, so I am always looking for processes that will help editors to create notable articles. As far as I can assess from my lurking, A Man In Black (talk · contribs) seems to have a mission at the "heart" level that's incompatible with modern views of adminship neutrality. His September 2005 RfA was very light touch compared with the ordeal by fire that today's candidates have to endure, and few of his 2005 supporters seem to be active nowadays. I would feel more comfortable if he went through RfA again, perhaps after a tranche of coaching from Casliber if he is willing. - Pointillist (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Pointillist might be on to something. Why not have admins go through the RfA process every couple years (kinda like an election for lack of a better term)...so the RfA isn't a one time only deal. I think that AMIB should go back through RfA and some coaching. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 27, 2009 @ 00:52

@Neutral, see Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Reconfirm_administrators. Unless AMiB submits to it, an ANI consensus could not force him to take a reconfirmation RfA just as it couldn't desysop him. All that can/should really be discussed here is the appropriateness of this block and whether it represents a pattern of nonconstructive behavior. If people believe strongly that it does and that action against him is required, then WP:RFAR is the place to go. Trying to push for outcomes that cannot happen here is a waste of time IMO. Oren0 (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You can't force any admin to do a recall unless there is wide consensus to make recall mandatory for all admins. Good luck on that windwill... rootology (C)(T) 01:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

What Oren0 (talk · contribs) says is technically correct. However, editors' acceptance of admin actions is to some extent voluntary, and for the time being A Man In Black (talk · contribs) is discredited. Bear in mind that current RfA processes ask a lot of searching questions about dispute criteria, neutrality, self-abnegation etc., none of which A Man In Black had to respond to in 2005, so a period of coaching followed by voluntary RfA would help restore his lost credibility. - Pointillist (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this what prompted your strange refactoring of an innocuous comment? Protonk (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, discredited is typically = desysopped, or confirmed bad socking, that sort of thing. I'm chalking this up to a momentary lapse and/or error, myself. Shit happens, we're human. rootology (C)(T) 01:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"Shit Happens" I would normally agree with, but when "shit happens" over and over and over again and it only happens when it is people who disagree with AMIB, it isn't "shit happening" anymore and it is intentional....and something needs to be done. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 27, 2009 @ 01:49

Assume the presence of a belly-button. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ack, regular resysopping would be a massive timesink. Arbcom is the place for review of misuse of admin tools, and I suggest this has been the most underutilised piece in teh admin jigsaw puzzle in recent years. And yes I would recuse from arbitrating on folks I have been in conflict with or semblance of conflict. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I note that you have not responded to Protonk's point earlier. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Which is that? There is no new standard of neutrality. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Which is that you and root both claim that some standard of neutrality exists which isn't written in INVOLVED. Are we appealing to the spirit of the rules, or an interpretation of the spirit that constrains admin action? Are we appealing to a policy that neither me nor AMiB are aware of? Or, as I suspect, do we have heterogeneous feelings about admin neutrality? Perhaps that heterogeneity makes it hard for us to match our 'feel' for what involvement constitutes and the policy as written. So what is it? Your response makes clear that there isn't a new standard of neutrality, so I should at least know what present policy gives us the inspiration for your interpretation. Protonk (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• I tried to close this damn thing way back up there, way above the top edge of my monitor, way above my roof, somewhere in the clouds. I consider Ikip a friend who might sometimes need a little reminder. As to AMIB, okay, suppose he was involved, let's try this inclusionist/deletionist T-shirt on for size, and he saw what he believed was canvassing. What does he do? Remember, canvassing can warp an AfD. I happen to think we should allow canvassing, totally (though not spamming), and then actually follow preponderance of the arguments, with a closing admin perhaps getting a tad irritated at having to wade through useless me-too arguments, which would then naturally stop, but that's not the consensus at the moment. So, given the consensus, canvassing can waste a lot of time, as an AfD gets shut down for damage from canvassing and restarted, just saw that happen a few days ago. It's an emergency, must stop immediately. So he blocks, but, wait, he's involved. Does he unblock? No, he goes to AN and reports what he did, which is exactly what someone with an involvement seeing an emergency should do. He should have immediately disclosed a possible involvement, but, apparently, he didn't think of it that way. He should possibly have recused immediately from opposing unblock, and, in fact, as soon as I commented that he ought to do this, because of the appearance of involvement, if nothing else, he did. AMIB's behavior here was quite proper, and the only error was, I believe, in viewing neutral notices on article Talk pages to be canvassing. And admins get to make mistakes; hopefully, they learn from them. 'Nuff said; where this discussion has raised other issues, they should be sectioned as such and discussed as such, or moved to an appropriate page where some conclusion might be made, or we end up with the bane of Wikipedia discussions: endless rant mixed with useful comment that is wasted because it goes nowhere. None of this should be viewed as disagreement with the myriad opinions expressed above. --Abd (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  This is to me an acceptable summary of what happened. I don't feel that I was involved in some larger meta-dispute with Ikip (I cannot see any personal gain I make by blocking him, and nobody was able to show one to me), but I brought it here in the interest of having greater input on my actions (which turned out to have been in error, due to changes in guidelines). As for recusal, where do I sign up for the "I know better than to wheel war guys, seriously" certification? I wouldn't reblock Ikip (or anyone, for that matter) without clear evidence of a compromised admin account or something. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• Disagreement over narrow (acting to gain an advantage in a specific dispute) versus loose (disagreement on a broad topic or general antipathy) interpretation of WP:UNINVOLVED is not new. If I remember correctly, a narrow violation is actionable, while a loose one may receive a warning. Of course, editors are free to express their opinions in either case. Flatscan (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I have sat out of this argument for several days, in an effort to lessen the peity drama.

I have a definitive answer.

Arbitrators have continued to explain what an "Uninvolved admin" is:

"...an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict." [14]

Under this defintion, A Man In Black is a very involved editor. Although he did not participate in the AFD in question, he has been deeply involved in policy around deletion and Article Rescue Squadron, in which we have had several heated arguments.

A Man In Black continues to disengeniously claim that he is not involved with me. That is false, and I appreciate he retract this incredibly misleading statment. I can provide edit difference of all the arguments we have been involved in together, if necessary. Ikip (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say this is an ex-parrot. You've not convinced members of ArbCom that your standards of 'uninvolved' are reasonable.[15] — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Notifications at related articles

I started a discussion at WT:Canvassing#AfD notifications at related articles. One may note that I used notifications that I posted as the example. Flatscan (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Markacohen disruptive editing and forum shopping

Markacohen is a SPA whose main purpose is to add links to Holocaust denial sites into a range of articles. He claims to be an anti-Nazi and that he only wants to add them to "expose them as pseudo-science" and "shine the light of truths" into dark corners. He has come into conflict with a number of editors, has been blocked once for edit warring, and is now forum-shopping around Wikipedia, trying to sell a fairly creative interpretation of events. Methinks he does complain to much. This edit leads me to lay aside WP:AGF and assume that he is indeed a Neo-Nazi in disguise. I'd suggest a last warning or an immediate block. Input from other admins would be appreciated. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I genuinely apologize for the edit warring and personal attacks I made initially, and was blocked for 2 days to think about it - which I did. During those 2 days, I apologized to everyone numerous times, and pledged to work within the system to resolve issues in a civil manner. During those 2 days I began reading the policies and procedures on how to properly overcome disputes. It is my genuine and honest desire to bring resolution to some issues which seem very ambigious, I am genuinely asking for help in these regards.

I am asking in good faith and with genuine honesty:

1. What is the proper way to seek resolution or help over the problem of Dougweller editing, deleting and modifying my discussion posts, which I believe are preventing a civil and neutral discussion of some very sensitive, taboo and controversial subjects?

2. Can someone please help me get accurate understanding of the rules and regulations on linking to hate sites from a hate article? I understand Holocaust Denial is a very sensitive subject, so please tell me how to properly, get resolution over someone deleting a reference link to the Leuchter Report, from the Leuchter Report article.

3. What does this mean, Wikipedia is not a collection of links? Whenever I post some external links in a hate article about the very hate article, I had WilliamH delete the links saying Wikipedia is not a hate collection of links.

4. What is a SPA?

I am asking in good faith, honesty and with genuine purpose for help in these regards. I do not want to fight, I make no personal attacks, I am criticizing certain behaviors that I believe are making open debate difficult in the discussion area. I know this articles are very sensitive subjects, i'm seeking how to work within the system for resolution, which is why I went to these various places asking for help.

Please help me or tell me, how I can reword my language or questions, so they are not adversarial or causing problems.

I apologize for anyones feelings I hurt, in anything I said. I am genuinely want to be a productive member of wikipedia.

Sincerely, Markacohen (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

An SPA is a single-purpose account. The accusation is that you're here to make some sort of point or prove some sort of truth. (I haven't gotten involved in this to know what's going on, just clarifying the terms.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for helping me out here. I genuinely would like to be here for the long run, not just on controversial areas. I have been reading Wikipedia for more years than I can count (love it to death!), and to be part of this project is an honor and a privilege for me. My interest isn't only in Holocaust Denial / Genocide Denial, I have many other interests as well. Although, right now I have gotten into some heated discussion regarding the Holocaust Denial areas and seeking resolution. If the Administrators want, I will voluntarily resign from Wikipedia or simply no longer contribute to areas concerning taboo or controversial subjects. It would make me sad beyond belief if I was banned and banished from Wikipedia. I am humbly asking to please not kick me out of this community, I genuinely believe I can be a valuable asset here once I learn the rules for resolving issues.

Sincerely, Markacohen (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You've accused me today of stopping links to the Leuchter report without mentioning that I was one of 4 editors reverting you, or that there has been a link to it (albeit not to the hate sites you are trying to add) since the 23rd. You've tried to add similar links to Germar Rudolf and complained on the talk page about me and another editor, despite the fact that your rationale is that people need to read what he wrote, and we already link to what he wrote. So all your links would do is add links to hate sites. You say you want to "make sure the proper and accurate keyword(s) Pseudo Science or Pseudo History" but you seem to do nothing about that. Your links are all to hate sites, it is other people who (since you started this) have added links to debunking sites. You get reverted by 4 other editors and won't accept that there is a consensus against you but go around complaing and asking for someone to help, although during your block you were given the link to dispute resolution.

Full disclosure - Markacohen has complained about me at Witiquette Alert [16] because when after being reverted he added the links to the talk page and I removed the 'http://' bits. Everyone involved knew what the links were. Dougweller (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Didn't we just do this like a week ago? //roux   16:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, Stephan Schulz may be on to something here, but I'll continue to assume good faith for now and wouldn't endorse a sanction at this stage. Markacohen, I strongly advise you to drop this and edit something else entirely. Per WP:RS and for other reasons, we are extremely reluctant to include external links to extremist and similarly problematic websites, except where the sites themselves are the subject of the article. Each such link (like any other article text) needs editorial consensus, and the links you want to insert currently have not. You will be taken much more seriously in any discussion about this issue if you dedicate a few months to making useful contributions to entirely uncontroversial subjects, in order to demonstrate that you are serious about contributing to Wikipedia and not a throwaway account with some disruptive agenda.  Sandstein  16:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC) (Note: the preceding comment was added in parallel to those of Dougweller and Roux above, but for some reason there was no edit conflict.  Sandstein  16:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC))

I'd strongly recommend not to assume good faith anymore. What makes me think that "Mark A Cohen" (why would someone "mark a cohen", actually?) is at best a kind of agent provocateur is his claim Leuchter is an "engineer" ([17]), a claim that has been debunked several times in court and elsewhere and is held up only by fellow Holocaust deniers ([18]). Cheers, --RCS (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been at WP:EAR for the past few days too. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI I closed the thread at WP:WQA to avoid forum shopping. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this discussion closed here? or are we still able to discuss things? After watching Mr. Death on google video, there is no doubt in my mind Fred Leuchter is an engineer. You don't have to have a degree in engineering to be an engineer, it is possible to become an engineer through real life experience. I personally abhor Fred Leuchter. I abhor the message of the Leuchter Report. Just because someone is a Holocaust Denier, it does not make them not an engineer. Fred Leuchter being a bad man doesn't take away the fact he is a skilled engineer in execution technology. Please stop with the personal attacks calling me Agent Provocateur and other insulting personal attacks.

Please stop with the personal attacks and stop trying to change the subject about the lack of substance and merit in your arguments. Can we please consolidate this discussion in one area? so I do not have to go all over the place to follow up?

Markacohen (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The diff brought forward by Stephan Schulz and the inclination to refer to Leuchter as an engineer when he isn't one in this context, even by his own written admission lead me to believe that we are not dealing with a good faith contributor. Furthermore, I have not reverted any of Mark Cohen's links on the basis that they are hate sites, but on the basis that Mark keeps adding them so that the reader can "come to their own opinion" - about a matter which is not a matter of opinion.

This is a flagrant violation of WP:FRINGE, and a completely nonsensical position if Mark opposes Holocaust denial as he says he does - yet another reason why I'm inclined to believe that User:Markacohen is a SPA/Holocaust denier trying to proliferate Holocaust denial material. I would endorse an indefinite block. WilliamH (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi WilliamH,

The whole basis of me linking to the Leuchter Report, from the Leuchter Report articles is because if you are going to properly write an article about the Leuchter Report you should link to the original source. I did so on this basis:

Extremist and fringe sources Further information: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources, Wikipedia:Fringe theories, and Wikipedia:PSCI

Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudo-academic,[3] or extremist may be used as sources of information about those organisations or individuals, especially in articles about those organisations or individuals, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

  1. it is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4. there is no reason to doubt its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources;

An individual extremist or fringe source may be entirely excluded if there is no independent evidence that it is prominent enough for mention. Fringe and extremist sources must not be used to obscure or describe the mainstream view, nor used to indicate a fringe theory's level of acceptance.

I am more than happy to have all those hate documents put on www.Archive.org so that we do not promote all those hate sites, which if this would be the best solution to stop the revert wars and the personal attacks against me. I would rather promote neutral sites, then hate sites. However, if there are no Neutral web sites I think it is reasonable under the guidelines I posted above to link to a hate site from an article about that same very hate. I would infinitely prefer we link to a neutral site than a hate site.

What do we do in situations where, there isn't a neutral site to link to, but only a hate site? Even though its legitimate to link to hate sites if the article is about hate, I don't want to upset you, RCS, DougWeller, jpgordon and anyone else who I consider to be on the Light side of the force if you know what I mean.

WilliamH, I want to work with you, not be adversaries. I don't think you realize we are on the same team, we both hate Holocaust Deniers, Haters, Extremists and Racists. However, i think we should put our sensitive and personal feelings aside and work towards making wikipedia neutral and keep our own political biases out of it. Can we burry the hatchet and work together to make Wikipedia an even better place? I forgive you for and anyone else that made personal attacks against me, even if they are sometimes couched.

Lets please try to work together and not fight.

Markacohen (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• More evidence to suggest that we are not dealing with a good faith contributor. WilliamH (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop with the personal attacks.

We finally came to consensus on Leuchter Report and found a way to link to the specific and relevant reference without linking to a hate site. You should be happy we came to Consensus, not turn this into an opportunity to make personal attacks. I am a good faith contributor, I worked within the system and we achieved consensus. Today is a great day!

Markacohen (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but will you PLEASE stop making flat out wrong claims? We did not "finally find a way" - the link has been in the article for 4 days, and this has been pointed out to you over and over again. It's just that you suffer from an incredible case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I say leave the man alone, I don't agree with that Link being in place on the Leucther Report article but well they want it there and I don't really think that all of them are Neo-Nazis so fine they can have their link and this guy Markachoen isn't doing anything worse than anyone else around.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I always think it's considerate when sockpuppets report themselves at ANI and save us the trouble... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with William–some things do not add up here, and with the sockpuppetry above, I'd support a block. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

What's a sock puppet or sock puppetry? Markacohen (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

See Sock puppet & WP:SOCK. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Main page featured article semiprotection

Hey, I need a little help here. Ocee (talk · contribs) has taken it upon himself to semiprotect the past few TFAs, which goes against the currently accepted practice, despite my pleas to stop. Today's TFA, Operation Passage to Freedom, was semiprotected despite barely being touched, and I counted two IP edits that were positive contributions. While his idea is not completely without merit, I don't think that a unilateral decision to semiprotect accurately reflects the will of the community or the spirit of the project. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the semi. The edits in the history do not amount to relentless or extreme vandalism, which is the threshold for a TFA prot, and I've left a note to that effect in the log. I'm not about to go full-on guns blazing, however. If he prots again, I'm not going to sustain a wheelwar. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 21:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bongwarrior. "This page is currently protected, and can be edited only by autoconfirmed users ... from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit!" –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If it were true that "anyone can edit", there would be no such thing as an indefinite block. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Given the persistence of some sock farms, apparently there isn't any such thing. ;-) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• TFA semi protection is A Bad Thing™, and just because a guideline "hasn't been discussed in a while" doesn't mean it has lost the support of the community. –xeno ^talk 01:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protecting the main page featured article is actually Doing the Right Thing™ hehe. I'm not suggesting that the guideline has lost total support from the community, I just don't think there is any sort of mandate not to semi-protect the article. I've gone into some depth on my rationale on my talk page, so feel free to take a peek if you're interested, and I'd be happy to elaborate if anyone would like. ocee^{Conas tá tú?} 21:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I am on your side, ocee, especially since the TFA's I've contributed to happen to be niche topics that don't garner many eyes to revert vandalism. But doing it as a preventative measure when it's possible good contributions might arise isn't a good idea. Unless people are having trouble keeping down the vandals, we should aim for a lighter touch. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The thinking on this is, there are so many eyes watching an MPFA while it's up, vandalism gets handled very swiftly, making protection of articles transcluded to the main page seldom if ever needed. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Again on the current TFA. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, thank you for spending some of your time dropping a line and making your views known about semi-protecting the main page featured article. All the comments are much appreciated. While I do feel that I was acting in the best interests of the project and that there are good reasons to semi-protect the main page featured article, I can definitely see the benefits of leaving it unprotected, and it appears that the majority of the handful of people that have commented here see the English Wikipedia benefitting more from leaving the main page featured article unprotected. I hope you'll understand that I was acting in good faith, and while I stand by my rationale for protecting the featured article of the day, I certainly recognise and respect that I'm in the minority on this issue.

With regards to the "wheel warring" hullaballoo below, I spoke with Julian before reverting him and he was fine with it, so no worries on that end. With regards to Clreland's and Deskana's suspicions, I apologise if anything seems amiss, but I do have the best interests of the project in mind. You can see my activity during 2007 here, so while I obviously took some time away from the project, the break was more like from the end of 2007 / beginning of 2008, as opposed to the end of 2006. Again, apologies for any confusion and for my boldish actions, but at least now we know (or I know, at least, it seems as if most of you were already on the bus, hehe) that semi-protecting the main page featured article might not be the best thing to do, at least not without proper discussion first. Cheers ocee^{Conas tá tú?} 06:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Was this discussion with Julian off-wiki? Since it isn't obvious, you may want to note something like that in your summary next time to avoid confusion. --Onorem♠Dil 12:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We did indeed discuss the matter off-wiki, though in all fairness, my comment was along the lines of "Go ahead, I'm not going to wheel war over it". –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That is not exactly the same as Ocee (talk · contribs)'s assertion above: With regards to the "wheel warring" hullaballoo below, I spoke with Julian before reverting him and he was fine with it. Cirt (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Unprotect the TFA

• Unprotect Now please, unless there is vandalism that cannot be handled through normal means.--Tznkai (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Please? Did the entire community just change their mind about TFA protection? If so, I'd like to know.--Tznkai (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is matter of semi protection warring now. Unless there is persistent vandalism it should not be protected. Is Ocee an actual admin on the Wikipedia? Their user page does not designate them as such and questions the legitimacy of the actions. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 04:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I recommend WP:POPUPS - hovering on the redlink shows s/he indeed is an admin and has been editing since 2006 Agathoclea (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with this request. If someone thinks that premature protection is for some reason now necessary on all TFAs, they should start a discussion to see if the community agrees. --Onorem♠Dil 04:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well. Let's have a discussion instead. Would anyone disagree if I was to remove the semi-editing protection? Icestorm815 • Talk 04:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• After a long period of inactivity an admin returns, chooses unilaterally to ignore the long-standing and well known consensus concerning protection of Today's FA and then wheel wars against said consensus to enforce his opinion. Am I the only one who finds this somewhat suspicious? CIreland (talk) 04:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • No. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 04:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the semi-protection and added a little note to not re-protect. Hopefully this doesn't escalate. Icestorm815 • Talk 04:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wheel warring by admin Ocee

Unless I am mistaken, it looks like admin Ocee (talk · contribs) is now wheel warring at today's featured article, here: [19]. Different admins may have different views on this, but unless there is extremely strong community-wide consensus for semi-protection of the TFA, there is certainly no justification for wheel warring. Cirt (talk) 04:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I made a request at the talk page of Ocee (talk · contribs) for the admin to undo the last protection [20]. Cirt (talk) 04:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Was, not is.--Tznkai (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully Ocee (talk · contribs) nor another admin will add it back... Cirt (talk) 04:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ocee has committed two sins here in re Kit (assoc. football) - Protting the TFA without there being extreme vandalism, and issuing preemptive protection (which the prot-pol explicitly forbids, TFA or otherwise). I would be wise and not stir the pot any further; the prot is certainly wrong for a TFA and wrong for a standard article. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 05:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Routine TFA semi-protection

Even before the wheel-warring incident, Ocee had semi-protected the TFA for six days running, in two cases within an hour of it going live. Much the same edit summary each time.

1. 16:13, 26 April 2009 Ocee (talk | contribs | block) changed protection level for "Operation Passage to Freedom" [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 00:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 00:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)) ‎ (page has been "vandalised" several times since appearing on the main page, and little useful content has been added by the affected users) (hist | change)
2. 00:26, 25 April 2009 Ocee (talk | contribs | block) changed protection level for "Hurricane Ismael" [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 00:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 00:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)) ‎ (page has been "vandalised" several since appearing on the main page, and little useful content has been added by the affected users - see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ocee&diff=285933745&oldid=285801103 for further explanation) (hist | change)
3. 00:58, 24 April 2009 Ocee (talk | contribs | block) changed protection level for "Learned Hand" [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 00:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 00:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)) ‎ (page has been "vandalised" dozens of times since appearing on the main page, and little useful content has been added by the affected users) (hist | change)
4. 18:47, 23 April 2009 Ocee (talk | contribs | block) changed protection level for "SkyTrain (Vancouver)" [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 00:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 00:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)) ‎ (page has been "vandalised" dozens of times since appearing on the main page, and little useful content has been added by the affected users) (hist | change)
5. 20:54, 22 April 2009 Ocee (talk | contribs | block) changed protection level for "William IV of the United Kingdom" [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 00:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 00:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)) ‎ (page has been "vandalised" dozens of times since appearing on the main page, and little useful content has been added by the affected users) (hist | change)
6. 19:27, 21 April 2009 Ocee (talk | contribs | block) changed protection level for "Alleyway" [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 01:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 00:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)) ‎ (page has been "vandalised" dozens of times since appearing on the main page, and little useful content has been added by the affected users) (hist | change)

What is going on here? Hesperian 01:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ocee's belief in this matter was that the TFA did not deserve any special treatment as far as protection was concerned. In the Operation Passage to Freedom article, at least (the other five I did not examine) there was indeed vandalism, but nothing above and beyond what a TFA generally gets. In fact, I'll be bold and say that that article suffered *less* than the normal amount of vandalism for a TFA. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 02:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• He has already committed to stopping, so there's no need to prolong this any further. –xeno ^talk 02:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Fake GA Reviews

New editor End of yarn just registered for an account, and passed Quark as a good article, without seeming to give it any real review from his passing "summary" and his incorrect method of trying to pass it. He's also claimed to be reviewing Prevailing winds. See Special:Contributions/End_of_yarn. I reverted these and left him a note explaining why, AGFing that he was just a new user who didn't understand the GA process. He reverted this as "trolling"[21] sending up some red-flags in my mind. Any one else want to keep an eye on him? Have there been any sock issues at GA of late? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

What???? I read that article like 10 times and is there any sane editor here who wouldn't pass it? I don't really see the problem here. I saw the reversal as a bit hostile in my mind. End of yarn (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, any sane editor would refrain from passing it as is. It fails the GA criteria. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

... FAILS the GA criteria? End of yarn's review might not have been a real review, but there's no need to make up things about the state of the quark article. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not. It has some unsourced parts and some MoS issues. Could easily pass with a little clean up, but in its exact state at the time he passed it, it was not GA quality. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

All sections are extremely well-referenced and it's MoS compliant. Don't throw generic oppositions because you've placed your foot in your mouth. The article more than meets the GA criteria, this is an FA quality or very near-FA quality article. If you have specific comments to make, voice them at talk:quark. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I have not placed my foot in my mouth, nor it is FA quality. There are several statements that have no references, probably just misplaced. There is no reason at all to attack me, or to take things so personally. It needs minor fixes, nothing major. You don't have to go all defensive over that. Very few articles sent to GAN are absolutely perfect for passing right then and there. Gesh. I don't see you attacking the person who made a very length post on the article talk page noting minor fixes needed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not a matter of being defensive or offensive, this is a matter of you depicting the article as something it is not, and this, to me, raises a ref flag about what you're saying about End of yarn. All statements are referenced, the article is MoS compliant, and Markus Poessel's comments are mostly about possible style issues, ways to phrases things etc. Two things stand out as needing correction (so indeed, it should not be a GA yet, but not because of referencing or of MoS compliance), but you could not have picked those up unless you already knew something about quarks and group theory and read the article in details, which, judging from your background and the timing of your edits, is not the case.

I've said my piece about your argument against End of Yarn's edits. I don't care much about what happens to him/her, but let's not hang him/her on fallacious grounds. I'm now unwatching this page, those who want to say something about the quark article are invited to discuss on talk:quark. I can be reached on my talk page for anything else. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: will decline to leave an AN/I notice since he found this within minutes of me posting it anyway. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Even though WP:GAN states that Articles can be nominated by anyone, and reviewed by any registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article, I smell something fishy, as well. MuZemike 21:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Or ducky. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The recently-indef'd sock farmer ItsLassieTime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) admitted to being a GA junkie and some wondered if that user had used fake support win some GA's, but I don't think that angle was investigated - nor does that case necessarily have anything to do with this case. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Meh, doesn't sound or look like a duck, quite yet. Keep in mind the articles ILT was working on. Jumping from 1950s/1960s television shows to a high level of physics is not quite convincing of skull-duckery. No one has heard a single peep, either; that is, claiming to be an 80-year-old from a retirement home or a "socker mom" trying to protect her daughter. MuZemike 04:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

While ILT did intimate that there are socks remaining in the drawer (there was a reference to a "fictitious Harvard student", for instance) and EoY's original talkpage has a certain faint quackiness to it I don't think we're ordering the orange sauce just yet. Bear in mind also that the IP ILT habitually used was blocked for 6 months, as well (and still is blocked, expiring on 8th October 2009). Tonywalton ^Talk 15:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Question: Was there a review page? I can't find one. Diderot's dreams (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, he just threw a short comment on the talk page then updated the GA template. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, then there was no review and the article cannot be passed without it. Maybe this is just a new form of vandalism (vandals are getting more creative these days) and needs admin attention. On the other hand, several hours passed between EndofYarn taking the review at GAN and passing the article, so that is not inconsistent with going over the article multiple times, as claimed. But there must be a written review done. Period. And if anyone disagrees with it they can challenge the review at Good Article Reassessment.

Maybe the best way to proceed is for EndofYarn to post a review, explaining how the article meets each of the GA criteria. If they really applied the criteria this shouldn't take long. We could proceed from there.

I see one shortcoming to the article had at the time of the debated review. This edit[22], made subsequent to the article being passed for GA, changed the term 'mass' to 'rest mass' which means the article had at least one problem with factual accuracy at the time it was approved. Diderot's dreams (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This user hostilely reverted every single one of my edits and called my legitimate effort to review this article fake. It is in my opinion that this thread is here because the user is mad that they were called a troll.

Now, if no one has anything else to say I would like to give this article a "real" review End of yarn (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"Every one of your edits"? You had made all of eight edits, nor were they all reverted. Your passing articles as GA without giving them a proper assessment was reverted, as is appropriate. A new editor suddenly passing GA articles would throw up red flags with ANY experienced GA reviewer and I'm sure if I hadn't reverted, someone else would have. You have no visible experience here, yet are suddenly passing random articles in a topic that is one of the most difficult to evaluate and has its own special criteria is cause for concern. I left you a note, assuming in good faith, that you meant well, yet you responded in a hostile fashion, causing me to wonder if my assumption of good faith was wrong and thus seek outside opinions. You are the only one responding in a hostile here, and I can't help but wonder why? And why a new editors first actions would be to start doing good article reviews, or how you even know about them, as few new users are aware of that area. I could care less if you call me a troll, though it was uncivil. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I like to WP:AGF for a split second here Collectonian, as much as I understand your overall concern ... maybe Yarn was previously someone else who exercised their right to vanish and has returned. After all, in ALL of Wikipedia, we're not judged by the number of our edits, but the quality of a few of them. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

RTV is not a right to "start fresh". So if he did exercise RTV, he would be violating it: "Vanished users have no right to silently return under a new identity." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then maybe they have an alternate account...that's not sockpuppetry according to the rules. Maybe they're a PhD in English and Journalism who has been reading GA's in Wikipedia for 4 years, and finally decided that they felt like reviewing them, so they created a userid. Then again, you may be right, they may be disruptive. We just don't know, do we, so we need to WP:AGF,and not judge based merely on # of edits. (talk→ BWilkins ←track)

I am no one's "sockpuppet". As you said, I have been reading Wikipedia articles for a while, I noticed the FA/GA icons and I felt like reviewing them. End of yarn (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: An extensive list of comments and suggestions for improvement have been listed on the article's talk page by an uninvolved editor, and the article was subsequently removed from nomination by the nominator. Diderot's dreams (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Totally baffled...

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In over two weeks time I have commented in only one AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia Lewis (10th Kingdom). And so, what is the most recent edit to that article? See this. First off, you would think after Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Jack Merridew-A Nobody, that editor would not make it a point to go after me in the lone AfD I have commented in the past couple of weeks, especially since I made no argument in the numerous AfDs he commented in or started. Now, as you can see at this, I am fourth in number of edits to that AfD and those in first and second place have 10 or more edits each, whereas I have a mere 3 edits). So, somehow my reply to ONE delete "vote" gets labelled as badgering when others have replied to a few times as many others in that discussion as I have?! Why single someone who is fourth in number of edits and who hasn't replied to anywhere near as many others in the discussion as those with the most edits? And again, especially given the recent ANI debate? On a second look, is this even meant as a serious contribution? Aside from the use of WP:JNN and WP:ITSCRUFT style of non-arguments, is using antagonistic phrasing like "this piece of shite article" really necessary? And what's with the "teh good reazons twoz delete; juz dooz-zit." Are we editing an encyclopedia as mature adults participating in a serious discussion or what? Now, I know some don't like me and probably don't care if someone goes after me, but there have been more disruptive/pointed edits beyond the above and thus beyond me: See Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Proposed_Motto (even A Man In Black, hardly an inclusionist told him to “knock it off”) See [23] (giving a suspected sock account a barnstar accomplishes what? Even if we aren't sympathetic towards sock accounts, how does mockingly giving one a barnstar improve the project? What is the point?) See [24] (is this even meant to be a serious argument…note edit summary in addition to the WP:JNN argument to avoid?) Not sure if the edit summaries here are supposed to be funny or what: [25], [26], [27], [28] See [29] (accusing those who defend fiction articles of merely "prattling on about whatever franchise has ensnared them as a means to vicariously participate in the story"--that's a great way to look at our volunteers!) I once again must appeal to point five at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jack_Merridew_ban_review_motion#Indefinite_block_lifted_with_editing_restrictions. I am absolutely baffled that after the recent ANI thread he would actually go after me in the one and only AfD I bother to comment in in the past couple of weeks. Unbelievable. I strongly urge the community to reconisder supporting at least Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Jack_Merridew-A_Nobody#Mutual_topicban_proposal_community_.21vote, if not Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Jack_Merridew-A_Nobody#Proposal:_Community_ban_of_Jack_Merridew. How much more of the above are we as a community really going to put up with? You would have thought that after that last and recent ANI thread, he would have either totally disengaged from me as I made sure not to comment in or rescue tag the AfDs he started, but instead not only comments in the same AfD as me, but to me in a bizarre manner and then uses a swear-worded stance that is hardly conducive to a civil discussion. And as indicated above, there are indeed other examples of less than productive or non-pointed editing since that ANI thread. I am at my wits end. I don't know what more to do here. I limited my replies in the AfD to only one editor's comment that I thought weak; I avoided rescue templating or arguing in the Honorverse AfDs JM started and we still get the above. I hate posting on ANI again, but I'm not interested in seeing if it's going to continue. None of us should have to keep putting up with this. Please help. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 08:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC) 5,531 bytes. I'll admit that I didn't read a word of it. But as someone who is entirely uninvolved in this drama, I'll offer a suggestion. Perhaps your time is better served improving these articles you continually vote to keep rather than posting here? Just my two cents. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Which is exactly what I do... Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 08:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Good God, do you have to bring every single case where Jack even playfully slights you to ANI? If you can't deal with that of all things, grow a skin. It's not harassment of any kind, and is even insulting to the spirit of the term harassment and the serious connotations it carries. If we're to have any proposal, is to ban both of you from reporting to ANI and restrict all complaints to Jack's mentors, whom I trust a lot more than you to know when to make a post to ANI when the situation is serious and needs outside comment. On top of all that, saying something is "not notable" in an AfD is not a bad thing no matter how much you think it is and certainly is not an offense of any sort. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 08:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC) If he is unwilling to leave me alone and to contribute constructively, the community should take action. I am not interested in just sitting passively by while someone who was unblocked under a strict condition to make NO disruptive edits sees fits to go after me in the only AfD I commented in two weeks time, to come at me in an accusatory manner when if anything at least two other editors replied to way more editors in the discussion, and to test the community's patience by making other unconstructive posts. Point 5 of the ArbCom either has meat and meaning or it doesn't. No, I don't want to just watch this go on and on. The community should have either endorsed the mutual avoidance last time or the reban proposal, because it is plainly obvious that things are not otherwise getting better. And I would hope you could look past any dislike of me of shooting the messenger as it were. I am here to contribute to what should be mature and academic discussions, not writing in "lulz", not calling our volunteers "prattlers", not calling their contributions "shite". It's not about me, but about adding to a needlessly antagonistic and unpleasant environment for our community as a whole. And we should do something now rather than just let things get worse. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 08:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Except that you're so caught up in this perceived conflict that you can't differentiate between an innocuous and trivial comment and one that was genuinely harassment or disruptive. None of these are, although I'd like it if he didn't completely butcher the English language in the process. One would think that you'd learn what constitutes a proper ANI post at this point; you would have a lot more success in getting what you want if you were able to make a concise post that concentrated on significant disruption and not trivial stuff like this. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 08:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC) He was unblocked on the agreement to make NO disruptive edits, not even what you perceive as "trivial" disruptive edits. Ergo he has violated, once again, the arbcom unblock agreement. Seriously, if you were subject of a dispute thread, wouldn't you make it a point if you saw your opponent comment in only one AfD in a couple of weeks time after that ANI thread to say err on the side of avoiding that one discussion? Who wouldn't?! And again, do you really think his giving a sock account a barnstar, even for "humourous" purposes actually adds something to Wikipedia? I don't mind good faith editors calling me out and challenging me to be a better editor. I obviously disagree with Sgereuka in that AfD, but he made a comprehensive nomination and did try a redirect first per WP:BEFORE. Thus, I can engage with him as an academic. How can any of us have a serious discussion with a "article is shite", those who defend it are "prattlers"? A number of editors have this misconception that I simply dislike deletion based arguments when more so than anything else, it's how one argues. And writing in this strange manner as what I cited above, does not allow for the advancement of a productive, academic discussion. And making it a point to go after someone after a divisive ANI thread is just mind-boggling. Could you imagine if after that ANI thread, I made it a point to say mock him specifically in the various AfDs he started and commented in since? Are you sure no one would see that as problematic? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 09:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Uh, you didn't address anything in my post. I don't know why I bother any more. Also, are you really rehashing your old JNN/PERNOM arguments for AfDs as Verbal notes below? Do you really have a stalker problem? I mean, your userpage is now the same, all your old behavior is back, and whatnot. I'm strongly feeling that there's no need to honor anything you say about this anymore if you don't care about your own safety. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 09:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Sephiroth, please stop trying to derail these discussions. We want this dispute resolved, right? It is clear and undeniable that 1) we recently had a rather divisive ANI thread about my and his interactions and in that discussion many suggested we avoid each other; as such, I commented in one AfD since and didn't comment in the many he commented in and certainly not to him; why then would he comment to me in the lone AfD I commented in since? 2) he agreed to be unblocked and to make NO disruptive edits, so then why have to be told by A Man In Black to "knock it off" in a discussion? Why see fit to give a sock account a barnstar? Why accuse good faith contributors of essentially arguings so that they can be part of fantasies? Why make an argument needlessly antagonistic by calling the article "shite"? Again, please look past whatever your opinion is of me, because I don't want this resolved just for my sake, but for the commmunity's sake. I wouldn't risk continuing to edit here, if I didn't seriously think Wikipedia was worth it. I believe in this project; I think it has a real potential to contribute to humanity's catalogging of human knowledge and it pains me to see the community being played in the above described manner. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 09:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC) You're still not bothering to address my post, so I don't see it as necessary to address your points either. I haven't seen anything on why this is non-trivial and why this is suddenly a blockable offense or something violating his ArbCom restrictions. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 09:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC) The arbcom agreement says "no disruptive edits." It does not say, "okay, well, so long as some people think they are trivial disruptive edits." Making a point of going after someone fresh off of a big ANI thread that resulted in even a spinout ANI thread is NOT a way to resolve tensions, but rather an attempt at escalation. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 09:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC) As the target of the comment from a nobody, I would appreciate it if he (and others) stopped this inane badgering at AfDs. The lack of good faith and civility is poisoning the atmosphere. Verbal chat 08:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC) I forgot: Sincerely, Verbal chat Afds are discussions and not votes. People interact in discussions. People's stances are challenged in discussions. But in any event, if you think they shouldn't be discussions, but rather votes, then that is a discussion for Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion as here we are discussing an ongoing and long unresolved dispute and it is best that we not side track it. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 08:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC) "Discussions"is correct, but your haranguing, lack of good faith, incivility, and self-rigtiousness do you more harm than good. I have changed my mind on AfDs (in both directions) following improvements or arguments on the AfD, but when you badger someone with your soundbites that are only tangentially relevant you make it harder for me to agree with your view, as I have to overcome the intense dislike you're fostering with your behaviour. Make your point in your own !vote, and ask people to clarify or bring up a point if they are egregiously wrong, but to badger as your edits do is counter-productive and irritating. If anything comments like Jack's in response help to defuse and calm the situation - I know it calmed my initial reaction to your poorly thought through comment on my !vote. Interactions should be collegial. Stick to discussions, not dogma. Verbal chat 09:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC) If you think my one reply to your one comment in one discussion is badgering then you do not know what badgering is. And if you think by contrast, his replying to me after an ANI thread in which many editors supported neither of us comment to each other at all in AfDs is helpful then I don't know what to tell you. And yes, when one such as I makes efforts to improve an article, it is indeed frustrating to see WP:PERNOM style comments that say nothing about the changes made since nomination, especially when they follow [30], i.e. you support a block for canvassing when as far as we can tell, no one actually commented in the AfD from the three pages where Ikip mentioned it, where by contrast it is likely that you and perhaps a couple others came across the AfD because of the ANi thread concerning that now undone block. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 09:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Note: AfDs, plural. This is one example. I also didn't say canvassing, my understanding was that gaming was part of the problem; but this isn't related. It ceases to amaze me that people who file ANI notices of this kind are often the guilty party. Verbal chat 10:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Comment: I with much displeasure have started this thread now knowing some will likely jump on me raher than see the message, because it is clear that the previous ANI thread resolved nothing and as such, not for my sake, but for the community's sake, it is far better we definitively resolve this dispute now rather than let it escalate any further. I appeal to the three arbcom mentors to determine whther or not this should continue here for community resolution or if rather it should be discussed on arbitration enforcement. As my self-deprecating username suggests, I am not editing here for myself, but because I believe Wikipedia potentially serves humanity in general. As such, I am even willing to pledge to take a real break from this site for a time so as to help deescalate things and when/if I come back to focus on DYKs and the like as I've pretty much had my fill of AfDs, partially why I've only commented in one in two weeks' time and only rescued that one article. People should be able to edit this site without having their good faith contributions called a "&curid=22519824&diff=286395449&oldid=286384688 piece of shite", having their motivations for editing be described as "prattling on about whatever franchise has ensnared them as a means to vicariously participate in the story," etc. or for someone who has been blocked for sockpuppetry to somehow see it a worthwhile use of time here to give a suspected sock account a barnstar. It is unfortunate that I have my own perception by many of me here that I fear clouds the validity of my request. Please, don't put up with this stuff, because it's an opportunity to go against me, but because the diffs I cite above actually do create a poisonous and unwelcoming atmoshphere for others beyond me and because given the agreement to make NO (without exceptions) disruptive edits, that there would be even questionable disruptive edits makes a mockery of that good faith unblock request and those who supported it. You don't need to care if I feel insulted. I'm a nobody. But it's not just me who is being insulted by the above cited diffs. And it's not me who is effectively being slapped in the face by having them made. And I implore anyone who is neutral to sift beyond whatever partisanship comes up here. Surely, some impartial arbcom members can do that. Please resolve this dispute now. Please do not allow it to get derailed again. Thank you for your time and help. Respectfully, --A NobodyMy talk 09:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Is this the diff we are meant to see as harassment/disruption? Protonk (talk) 10:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC) I have posted about a half dozen diffs of disruptive/unconstructive/escalatory edits in various places above and I am confident that no neutral editor with no past involvement with me will see the totality of them as anything but a collective violation of point 5 of the arbcom agreement. This time, even more so than the last time, it is fortunately obvious, and as such I am much more confident that neutral parties and/or the three arbcom appointed mentors will indeed do something to prevent this dispute from needlessly escalating any further. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 10:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Well bringing ths here as disruption, harassment or both is certainly what I would call "escalating". pablohablo. 10:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC) I don't want play games and wait and see to what degree this stuff is going to continue. I would much rather we put a stop to this dispute right here and now than just allow for swipes to continue and build over time. We can minimize the disruption by accomplishing what the first ANI thread failed to do. I have commented in one AFD since that last ANI thread and naturally he sees fit to comment to me in that lone AfD thread while in his delete "vote" saying the article is "shite" and saying it exists for the sake of "fans of a hottie prattling-online," which patently insults the various editors who worked in good faith on the article and who defended it in the AfD. Making a blanket assertion about our contributors is insulting. Seeing fit to go after me in first and only AfD I comment in since the last ANI thread is an ominous sign. We already had one ANI thread that was pretty massive and so, why allow things to build again? Why not just deal with it not, before it gets any further out of hand elsewhere? Let's iron it out here on ANI, rather then see AfDs or anywhere else be disrupted by a totally unnecessary dispute. He has three arbcom appointed mentors. He has an agreement not to make any disruptive edits. Doesn't that agreement have some teeth? And I don't want the precedent to be set that it's okay if I get bullied, because if we allow that, then it sets the stage the same happening to others. Regards, --A NobodyMy talk 10:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC) You've posted a half dozen...and just like last time, only one is relevant. What are we supposed to make of the 3-4 "is this edit summary supposed to be humorous?" diffs? What are we supposed to do with this? That's not him harassing you or him being disruptive. Remember our conversation last time? That you will gain more from honestly presenting a small number of issues than inflating them into something they are not? Protonk (talk) 10:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC) If even one you think is relevant, then it is still a violation of point 5. Sincerley, --A NobodyMy talk 10:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC) That's not my point. Multiple people have asked you not to come to AN/I with posts that are essentially throwing everything you have at a wall and seeing what sticks. I'm not particularly concerned about the diff you mentioned. I can't for the life of me see how it is the end of the world for you to be told that JNN/PERNOM copy/paste responses are badgering. People have been trying to tell you that for YEARS (literally). And don't respond with "but JNN/PERNOM votes are..." I don't want to get into that discussion. In my opinion, your one cited diff was fairly benign. So no, I don't agree that it was a violation of point 5. Protonk (talk) 10:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC) You would think after such a discussion as Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Jack_Merridew-A_Nobody#Mutual_topicban_proposal, in the only AFD I commented in since that thread, he would not comment directly to me in that discussion, while saying say nothing to anyone else there. Seriously now. How many editors commented in that AfD? Why would someone who earlier this month many editors supported he and I avoid each other or if we comment in the same AfDs not comment to each other see fit to of all the participants in the AfD to only comment to me? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 10:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC) I can only note that Jack refused to agree to that compromise mutual topic ban so it doesn't have any bearing on the subject. I have an alternative view. Jack is being impish. He intends to needle you up to the point of frustration, which unfortunately for you seems to be a relatively low threshold. What he's not doing is harassing you or disrupting the project. Making an offhand comment designed to rile you up isn't harassment (as you have noted in the past when people have accused YOU of harassment). Relentlessly following your contributions, stalking you (or whatever we call it now), reverting your edits, refactoring your comments, etc. THOSE are signs of harassment. Again, taking a comment like his and making a production out of it isn't going to win converts. Eventually, the list of people who will diligently read through each diff and judge it on its merits will dwindle and people will have heard you cry wolf enough. I'm not "neutral", so I can't say that definitively, but that's what it looks like from here. Protonk (talk) 10:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Well, why antagonize someone by "needling them up to the point of frustration"? And as far as relentlessly following my contributions goes, as you can easily see, I haven't edited as much since that ANI blowout. There are a few days I didn't edit at all. Indeed, I only edited in one AfD since then and so, there really wasn't much to follow around since then, but the one thing that I did focus on, i.e. rescuing that one article, is where he did indeed see fit to comment to me and only to me and no one else. I would much rather this not be an ongoing trend when I by contrast didn't see fit to even rescue template all those Honorverse articles he AfDed. But again, I'm not sure why you don't see the other evidence above problematic. To take the Socratic approach... What is the point of giving a suspected sock a barnstar? How does that improve Wikipedia? What is the point of calling the article "a piece of shite" rather than criticizing it in a more articulate and less inflammatory way? What is the point of in two AfDs calling those who write/defend these articles "prattlers"? How does such a designation reach out to those volunteer contributors? How are these edits not unproductive? What do they actually do to improve Wikipedia? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 10:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Who knows why? But it is a stretch to go from one diff to say that he's stalking your contributions. The fact that you have editing little since the last AN/I would make it easier for us to make that claim but it can't possibly make it so easy that one response is sufficient. As for your litany of questions--I DONT CARE. I suspect few others do as well. I can't imagine a smaller thing to get worked up about then whether or not Jack has given a barnstar to a sock or not. I also note AGAIN that you are bringing up tangential issues and presenting them as core problems. It is most certainly not harassment for Jack to have an intemperate opinion of an article which is at variance to yours. Likewise I should hope that you would be the first to defend someone's views of content being separated from their conduct, right? Either the sole new diff you provided was sufficient to present an incident requiring administrator action or it wasn't. Rehashing old issues or conflating non-issues with issues won't hold water. 11:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC) It shows that even after that ANI thread and even with me not commenting to him, he will indeed be sure that even if I comment in but one AfD, he too will not only comment in it, but to me, and only to me and as such, it is clear that barring an admin tells him to avoid me, he won't, but here's the fun part, an admin did tell him to leave me alone, and he didn't. In fact, even after the last ANI thread, I reduce my editing, only try rescuing one article and commenting in one AfD, but still there he is to go after me and in the process call the article I worked to rescue "a piece of shite" and those who defend it, which means not just me, "prattlers." And yes, I think the good faith editors who worked on the article and who argued to keep it don't much appreciate having the work and motivations dismissed in such a manner. You may not care, but perhaps they do. Perhaps our volunteers aren't going be encouraged to contribute if their just dismissed and insulted. So, if he's alreeady ignoring Casliber's warning to leave me alone, and further doing so after the previous ANI thread and with me not replying to him anywhere, I don't know what more it's going to take? Is he going to comment to me in every AfD I comment in? Does he not care if admins warn him about anything? And really, you can probably imagine, I certainly would have liked to say more in that AfD, but thought, no, you know what, this time, I will only reply to those who reply to me and maybe make one other reply to someone else. From here on out, I will reisist, as I did, replying to everyone of an opposing viewpoint. I try to change my approach and even then, I get singled out. Who would want to put up with that? Who would want to just ignore it and watch as it continues as Casliber's warning is just essentially laughed off and yeah, I would say accusing those who defend fiction articles as being mere "prattlers" is hardly tangential, because I defend such articles, and so it is indeed an insult to me as well as the other keeps in those AfDs. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 11:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC) I'm not convinced that his view of an article is somehow a special slight to you. Most of what you said directly above has been said before and is so intertwined with the inclusion/deletion mess that I don't think a neutral person could reliably judge its relevance. And I've said in the past thread that I think he should avoid you. I'll go further. If he persists in antagonizing you, he should be blocked. However I still think you are misrepresenting the scope of the problem and in doing so damage your own case. Multiple people, in this thread, have asked you to stop conflating views on content with harassment and yet you persist. YOU have escaped sanction in past AN/I threads by the skin of your teeth because people have been willing to grant you a great deal of leeway in order to avoid punishing you for your views. You specifically should avoid characterizing his comments about articles as harassment directed at you or if not harassment something worthy of umbrage. All that was required here was 1-2 sentences noting that diff and asking for some relief. Protonk (talk) 11:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC) I am pretty sure that in this ANI thread I did not use the word "harassment." As no, I am certainly not alleging he is doing anything off wiki against me. And as far as views goes, this is not merely inclusionism/deletionist. I don't think deletionists are "prattlers" and I wouldn't label them as much. I disagree with a deletionist philosophy, sure, but I see no need to comment on the editors in the AfD. Arguments, sure, but my umbrage is not with his believing the article should be deleted, but that those who worked on it or who think it should be kept are some kind of non-worthwhile entities which he labelled as "prattlers" in at least two different AfDs. And yeah, I am frustrated because an admin, Casliber, has already warned him to leave me alone and he didn't. So, I started one ANI thread and it devolved into I don't even know what to call it. And after that, I made no on wiki comments to him (nor on Wikipedia Review or anything). Yet, I comment in one AfD and sure enough he comments to no on else in it but only to me. And yes, after having already been warned by an admin to leave me alone. So, if someone has been warned by an admin to leave someone else alone and doesn't, then what the heck? If someone disregards an admin's warning, especially an arbcom appointed mentor admin, I don't if a firmer warning should be given or what, but in any event, as I propose below, after this thread is archived, hopefully, a much more sterner community agreement will be made that precludes him from hounding me any further and discourages me on the reverse from starting these threads. I hope that after two ANI threads now, you and everyone else will indeed look at any future antagonism by either party very sternly. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 11:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC) We shant review all of your pleasant commentary about deletionists. But if the heart of the matter is his refusal to abide by Casilber's warning, then ask Casilber to put some force behind it. I'm not willing to read a sentence with the word "please" in it as a dictum, so I won't interpret it and block accordingly. Only Casilber knows exactly what he wrote there. If he wants to block or propose blocking JM based on this issue, then ask him and have him propose it. Protonk (talk) 11:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Pura Ulun Danu Bratan tl;dr A Nobody really needs to take User:SB Johnny up on his request to start an email dialogue; I did and we're waiting for his input. Seems that he's only interested in kicking-up more drama, which needs to stop. At this point I'd be on solid ground making a harassment case against him. And where's my ani notice about this? Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC) See also: User:A Nobody/RfA#Suggestions — A Nobody's 'rules' for whom is welcome to offer suggestions and, more to the point, who is not. Seems he has about a half dozen allusions to me as someone unwelcome. Obviously I, and a hoard of others, will oppose any RfA. Duh. It seems to me that his rules amount to a series of digs at me and an offer of bait for a round of ani drama such as this one. I've focused on content since the last dust-up. Sure I took a few of the unworthy to the block, but I've also created new articles (and the pic) such as the water temple. I've been working my way across Africa building navigation templates for rivers. I also have done some interesting things to the non-notable 'Honorverese' dreck. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC) While A Nobody has brought one diff to the table, in the last 10 days Jack Merridew has 100 edits in the Wikipedia: namespace, mostly in the Fiction AFDs. When viewed from that perspective, 1% doesnt seem like grounds for complaint. If it was on an AFD topic that Jack Merridew doesnt often go to, I might see your point, but Jack does seem rather fond of voting delete on most Fiction related AFDs. I've tried to convincing him that he should vote keep on them, and maybe even clean them up, but he has yet to see the light. Has there been other diffs where the paths have crossed in that timeframe? John Vandenberg (chat) 10:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC) I did tidy up Moby-Dick the other day and if anyone ever AfDs that, I'll be sure to work to rescue it. This isn't about 'fiction', it's about inappropriate articles and my new wikihounder.What harassment is not — Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC) I have avoided commenting in and obviously to him in the various AfDs he has started or commented in since the previous ANI thread. I comment in one thread and he not only comments in it, but to me as well and again, this follows on a thread in which a proposal that we avoid each other had more supports than not. You would think just as I refrained from commenting in the AfDs he commented in, he would not see fit to make it a point to comment to me in the one that I commented in. And again, I am not simply concerned here about this interest in me, but also in this bad faith accusing of editors who work on fiction articles. Look, all I want is for it to be clear that if I am not going to be going after him in AfDs, there is absolutely no need for him to go after me. And moreover, if there is an agreement that he should make no disruptive edits, then, he shouldn't be giving blocked socks barnstars, calling people's good faith contributions "shite" or calling those he disagrees with "prattlers". Why is it necessary to comment to NO ONE else in an AfD but me? Why say I am badgering when I replied to ONE other editor, yet the nominator and someone else replied to 10 editors a piece? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 10:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Outside question. Since you keep pointing to the topic ban proposal, what do you think about point 3, "Starting any AN, AN/I, AN3, WQA, RFC, RFARB cases or threads about each other without the blessing and approval, onwiki, of a neutral admin"? Have you done that here or is it just Jack's conduct at issue? I know none were passed, but even under the particular language of point 4, "Commenting on AFDs or article-rescues started by the other", Jack hasn't violated that. Are we supposed to punish him for violating a requirement nobody suggested (under a proposal he wouldn't agree to) when you went against an explicit proposed requirement you supported? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC) My concern is that I have largely laid low since that ANI thread. There's a few days since that I even made no edits. So, in the time, I did rescue one article and defend it in an AfD. And I made sure to avoid any articles or AfDs he was in. Yet, of the dozen or so editors who commented in the one AfD I participated in since that ANI thread, he only sees fit to comment to me in that discussion and then makes a "vote" where he calls the article that I and others worked on a "piece of shite" and those who defended it are dismissed as "prattlers," a condescending term he used in another AfD as well. If in the only one article I tried to rescue since and the one AfD I comment in since the previous ANI thread, he sees me as the only person in that AFD worth commenting to, my concern is that it is a sign of things to come, i.e. even if I don't comment to him or even in the same AfDs as him, he will nevertheless still go after me and only me for that matter while making "votes" that essentially insult our contributors and their contributions. On as big a place as Wikipedia is and if I can resist commenting to him in AfDs or even slapping rescue templates on AfDs he nominates, then there's just no valid reason why of all the participants in the sole AfD I comment in in two weeks, I am the only one he must respond to. I don't want this to continue in any manner beyond this ANI thread and I'd rather not just sit back and watch the replies pile up in AfDs even if it would give me some kind of stronger case in the future, I'd rather it be nipped in the bud now and given the additional element of calling those who defend fiction articles mere "prattlers", that is something that should be addressed sooner rather than later. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 11:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry, A Nobody, but I honestly can't see you have a case either for harassment or disruption, and the spatter of irrelevant diffs just weaken your position further. I think you are disposed to see any interaction with Jack as harassment. Have you e-mailed SBJohnny as suggested at the previous ANI? pablohablo. 11:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Enough was going on earlier this year that culminated in this talk page warning by his arbcom appointed mentor who is also an admin. Following that comment by his arbcom mentor to "leave me alone", he continued to see fit to not do so in various places (for example, [31], [32]--and no, I was not talking about him, [33], etc.), which resulted in the first unresolved ANI thread after which I greatly reduced my editing and only defended one article from deletion. In that lone AFD I comment in since, he comments to no one else but me, bearing in mind that enough was going on pre-April that he had already been advised to leave me alone. And then given, the first ANI thread and my avoiding saying anything after him in any AfDs, you'd think there'd be nothing else. Thus, I believe the below solution is the best way to avoid any further tensions. No playing games trading emails, no need for extensive mediation. Just plain and simple on a site with 2 million articles, we avoid each other. AfDs and RfAs thus will not be marred by any animosity between us that distracts from the article or candidate under discussion. No need for additional ANI, etc. And my concern is largely given what he did to White Cat that resulted in his sanctioning, there are signs of it starting with me. I do not want to take on that role. I can leave him alone, he should be able to do the same. Let's move on. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 12:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC) A quick note, since I was mentioned. If I thought JM merited a block for his post at WP:ARS, I would have made that block. If someone feels that that comment crossed a line and feels that JM should be blocked for it, that's their business, but I don't want to see my comments misused further, thanks. Please do not involve me or my comments in this nonsense. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Proposal I am not sure if we can just do this here or if it requires arbitration, but to make it clear that this dispute ends in this thread, I propose and obviously endorse the following for the good of the community: 1. User:Jack Merridew and User:A Nobody agree to completely avoid each other on Wikipedia English pages. No confrontational editing the same pages (not a big deal if we happen uppon the same article without noticing the edit history and say make a lone grammar improvement), no comments about each other by name or innuendo. No harassment of each other in other venues. This restriction will be interpreted in the broadest way with no allowance for any attempt to skirt the restriction in any manner. 2. A Nobody and Jack Merridew are hereby completely forbidden from: 2a. Commenting to each other anywhere onwiki, including each others' talkpages, with the sole exception of formulaic community-mandated notifications; 2b. Commenting about each other anywhere onwiki, with the sole exception of responding to AN, AN/I, AN3, WQA, RFC, RFARB cases brought by the other; 2c. Starting any AN, AN/I, AN3, WQA, RFC, RFARB cases or threads about each other. )This time around, enough eyes should be on us, that I trust someone will take notice if either party goes after the other beyond this thread and as such let someone familiar with react accordingly). 2d. Commenting on AFDs or article-rescues started by the other--e.g., A.Nobody tags an article for rescue, Jack Merridew must stay away from both the article and the AFD discussion. Likewise, Jack starts an AFD, A.Nobody must stay away from both the article and the AFD discussion. It should be emphasised that in light of the other above points, any attempt by either of these two to game the proposed restrictions via baiting, veiled references, or any other type of wikilawyering end-run should be viewed extremely dimly by admins. Infractions to be met by the usual series of escalating blocks. ADDED: To put it in a much simpler way, the two of them be told to stay away from each other, permanently. 2e. Neither editor nominate articles for deletion for which the other editor created or significantly worked on. Let's put a stop to this dispute here and now. No more antagonism in AfDs, no more ANI threads. Wikipedia has over 2 million articles. I avoided commenting in and trying to rescue his Honorverse AfDed articles, there's no urgent need for him to have to go after any ones I work on either. There is no real reason why any two editors on such a big project cannot agree to avoid each other. Clearly, the community is not interested in AfD antagnoism, and clearly it is not interested in any further ANI threads between us. Let's put a stop to all of this and get back to improving the project. And the above is far and away the best way forward. No need to play games trading emails, no need to discuss fine points. I tried reaching out to him in the past, was rebuffed. We tried with Casliber firmly saying to stay away. That didn't work either. So, let's just make it a clear and umabgiguous avoidance per the above and that's that. No more escalation, accusations, or anything else. The community will be far better for it. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 11:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Since 2c was proposed at point 3 last time, and you supported it then while ignoring it just now, how am I supposed to believe you'll do anything but support it again and ignore it again next time? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC) I'd generally support it but if you won't follow suggestions by others and won't follow promises you made before (let's not even get into the whole RTV thing about promises and allegations you've made before), the community is supposed to trust that this time, you are being serious and not just flailing accusations at everyone who disagrees with you until they leave? The last character doing that stuff I saw ended up with a one-year community ban. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC) As you said above, the previous proposal was not marked as "resolved", "approved," etc. So, even though I wanted them supported, I was hardly bound by them. By contrast, Jack did have a separate talk page warning from Casliber (arbcom mentor) to leave me alone, which was actually ignored and as such, that's why I am here, i.e. he was warned to leave me alone and isn't. Now, this time around, if all the points above are closed as "passed" by the community, whether any one party really wants to keep after the other for whatever unjustifiable reason, well, obviously both parties will have to abide by them or face being blocked. I am hoping that this time, with two ANI threads, enough editors will have seen them that if a pattern of going after me persists, there wouldn't be any need for me to ask for help as enough editors will be aware to take action themselves. Surely after this thread and when the above proposal is passed, someone will take notice if in AfDs they start seeing antagonistic replies to me. As I said previously, there is no legitimate reason why anyone would be so fixated on someone else on Wikipedia that they could not totally disengage from them. So, yeah, if the above is actually passed this time, you will not see any ANI threads from me, because I trust someone else will notice or keep an eye on our edits for any violations and will do something accordingly. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 11:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Or we could focus in the relentless drama-seeking and disruption on your part. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC) ...and that comment helped to resolve the issue how? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC) It puts the proper issue forward. The whole bit above is a rehash of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Jack Merridew-A Nobody. A Nobody is focused on extending my editing restrictions. I expect that this go-round, the concerns that many have about him will result in a rather stiffer proposal that adheres to him alone. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Proposal 2 Jack Merridew, leave A Nobody alone, don't comment on him, reply to him, or try to needle him otherwise. With your past, you don't get to behave like any other editor, you have to be a much better editor than most, with special attention to your interactions with other editors, to counterbalance your history. A Nobody, ignore Jack and his comments, spare the community the drama of making a molehill out of a single reply to an AfD post you made, and don't repeat proposals which were not agreed upon two weeks before and which you don't follow either. And stop posting essay links in AfD discussions as if they are policy, even when they are hardly relevant. Fram (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC) I can agree to that if it is clear that anyone paying attention will take action if the above is ignored, i.e. yeah, okay, I won't start threads here, if after this thread is archived I'm not hounded any further by him and if I am anyone who notices, whether it's you, Protonk, Casliber, etc. does something about it. And I'd rather it be clear as well that not just me, but anyone who does defend these fiction articles are not denigrated as "this piece of shite article is about; fans of a hottie prattling-online" and "prattling on about whatever franchise has ensnared them as a means to vicariously participate in the story." I think none of our contributors need be dismissed or insulted in such fashion. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 12:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Support --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Comment by slipping in that "hounded any further" clause you are claiming that it is self-evident you have been hounded. There is no evidence for this. As far as shite, prattling, doe-eyed hotties etc goes - this is certainly robust language and some may see it as uncivil but I don't think it harasses anyone nor is it particularly disruptive. pablohablo. 12:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC) He did enough earlier this year to be told by his arbcom appointed mentor to leave me alone. Yet, he continued to make digs at me and only me in RfAs, AfDs, etc. In the only AfD I commented in since the last ANI, I am the ONLY editor he commented directly to. Why only comment to me and no one else? Why if told in March by Casliber to leave me alone, not do that? The bottom line is clear that if the community asserts we must avoid each other, the community will be better for it, because it precludes any room for the dispute to escalate beyond this thread. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 12:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Comment As needed as the last sentence of A Nobody's half of the bargain is, I feel compelled to point out that it isn't terribly germane to the matter at hand. I should also note that apart from that last sentence, this proposal and the last one are identical (if you strip the faux legal jargon from the last proposal). Just figured I would point that out. Protonk (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC) I just wanted to indicate that the less you needlessly annoy people (by being uncivil like Jack Merridew in some cases, or by responding with the same irrelevant essays as if they are policy like A Nobody in some cases), the less other people will feel the need to reply accordingly, and the more chance you have of a sympathetic ear when you are complaining about these replies. Fram (talk) 12:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Fair enough. Protonk (talk) 12:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Fram's proposal makes a lot of sense. Stifle (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose Not very enforceable on A Nobody's end. A mutual topic ban is tricky to enforce, but compare that to coming to AN/I and being asked to block A Nobody for violating the last sentence of this little agreement. That will go down like a lead balloon, regardless of who agrees to it today. Though I will reverse my opinion if this proposal garners enough support to simply apply it to JM and not merely suggest it. Protonk (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Support - Fram hit the nail on the head. BOZ (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Support as proposed by Fram, as an interim measure while they are working things out for the longer term via e-mail, mediated by User:SB Johnny (assuming he's still up for it) as recommended at the last AN/I. pablohablo. 15:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC) I'll certainly agree to this sort of thing as an interim measure if it will get A Nobody to the table. That's been understood all along. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Proposal 3 :Lock the doors, walk away Reinstate Jack's ban, enforce A Nobody's vanishment, and be done with it. This is a dispute between two editors that don't enjoy the normal rights and privileges of a typical editor. Jack Merridew is here after being reinstated from a ban, where one of the primary reasons was the constant taunting of White Cat. I can sympathize with the argument that his treatment of A Nobody looks like that pattern could be starting again. A Nobody vanished ... he invoked his right to vanish, a process which entails actually leaving. A Nobody voluntarily abandoned his ability to edit Wikipedia when he did so. He edits only under the tolerance of others. The simplest and most effective way to keep the rest of us from having to deal with disruption caused by these enormous scattershot ANI reports generated by A Nobody over complaints about juvenile taunting by Jack Merridew is to indefinitely block both accounts and walk away.—Kww(talk) 16:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC) I appreciate that your post above is largely fair. I only have two quick notes...1) aside from items that were oversighted, I was essentially unvanished (my talk page history still exists, I have the same block log, etc.). 2) So long as the community makes it clear that neither of us are able to do anything whatsoever to each other that could possible enflame things beyond this ANI thread, really that should be enough to prevent anything further as if either party goes against that, enough eyes have been on this thread that surely someone would do something accordingly. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Given Nobody's unwillingness to abide by the editing restrictions he wants enforced, and his refusal to curtail the verbal diarrhea, I would support enforcement of his alleged vanishing. No comment on Jack. //roux   18:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC) I absolutely agree to the proposal you suggested last time so long as it is clear that I will not be fixated on by this editor any further. Remember, I didn't comment to or about him since the previous ANI thread until he saw fit to reply to me and only me in the lone AfD I commented in since. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Reinstate Jack's ban, enforce A Nobody's vanishment, and be done with it. Agreed. Both sides seem to want drama. Both have been in trouble before. They're fighting over a spinoff article about a minor TV mini-series. Just block both of them for a few months, so we can do something else. --John Nagle (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC) 55 kilobytes, and counting One edit warrants all this? Right. This is disruption. It's all of a piece; A Nobody, E&C/E&C 2, Pixelface, Ikip, ARS, fancruft. In the E&C 2 case folks were told to not inflame the situation, and I feel that the defend-at-all-costs crowd has done an awful lot of flame-fanning. This is blowing up every few days now. I commented that A Nobody was, yet again, badgerring folk at AFD. See the reply from the badgered editor. No wonder Cas calls AfD the trenches; some are endlessly combative. It is time for the disruption, the bad faith, the off-topic TL;DRs from A Nobody to end. He had the chance to hash this out with SB_Johnny; still does, I expect. I'll talk. But he doesn't want that; he wants to rally the villagers, and their pitchforks and torches, and burn down the windmill. And he claims to be a 'mature adults participating in a serious discussion.' These little dramas on ANI are called 'clubbings'. Don't get too caught-up in the drama. I'm at UTC+8, which is pretty much day/night inverted from most here; close, at least. It gives one a different perspective. I'm off for the night soon, but many will pick at this while I sleep. Tomorrow, I'll read through all the noise, reverts, collapsing and uncollapsing. Don't have too much fun, ok? And don't reward disruption. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Jack Merridew, stop commenting on A Nobody, just leave him completely and utterly alone. There are more than enough editors around who will comment on him or his actions when he goes too far. But you are definitely not the one to be doing this. Drop the comments, drop the attitude, or risk a lengthy block for disruption. A Nobody needs a thicker skin, but there's no need for you to put needles in it anyway. Fram (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Good advice in general, but Jack Merridew has to be allowed to comment freely here, if nowhere else, surely? This "incident" is after all, ostensibly about him. pablohablo. 14:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC) I'm off for the night anyway. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC) (ec)He is free to comment here, and has done so a number of times. But how is his last comment helping in any way? It is obvious that noone is going to take any direct action against Jack Merridew for this last incident alone, but that most people are quite fed up with the disruption both cause through their actions or their responses to actions of the other. To drag in other editors and projects is not helpful in any way and will only serve to create more drama (and linking drama to Rwandan Genocide is not really helpful either, of course). If both editors back off, here and in general (from one another), then this may get resolved. If they don't, then both editors are risking lengthy blocks for just wasting everbodys time with their actions. And Jack's comment above was a step in the opposite direction, expanding this section into a larger dramafest instead of seeking a resolutionor quietly stepping away. Fram (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC) I see the way forward as w/SB_Johnny. I've a dozen emails with him seeking a resolution here. That's what came out of the last attempted lynching. G'night, Jack Merridew 15:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Cutting the Gordian knot These threads are coming up too frequently, aren't going anywhere, and are taking up too much administrative time. Although I like and respect both A Nobody and Jack Merridew, we have a shortage of administrators at this site and have to solve this some other way. So proposing a 1-2-3 solution: Encourage both Jack and A Nobody to enter mediation. Offer to certify a conduct RfC on either of them. If another thread like the current one appears on an admin board within two months (long and unactionable) and no other formal dispute resolution has been undertaken, I will open a formal mediation request for the two of them. If that works, wonderful. If it doesn't, the next stop will be RFAR. Any objections? DurovaCharge! 16:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Thanks for chipping-in, Durova. I've said I'll talk this through; said so last time, too. I don't see any comment from SB_Johnny re this thread and feel that's the place to start. If that doesn't work out, or A Nobody won't agree to talk,but he did before I'm not opposed to formal mediation. I've never done that; it seems a step often skipped. I've said a number of times the A Nobody needs an RFC/U, as have others, including yourself. As he's said something to the effect that he wouldn't honor or respect one started by the likes of me, I've not gone there. If someone gets it rolling, I'll offer a view. If one is opened re myself, I'll listen, reply, and take the reasonable bits aboard. Your point three could be moot, given my two comments above. I see a problem with your terms which basically invite stonewalling on A Nobody's part followed by another round of ANI Drama. A pity that shortcut was hijacked; it still applies. If he does not agree to any of this, you have my blessing to move sooner than two months. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC) It seems relatively simple here that he and I should be able to just avoid each other. We have over two million articles. There's absolutely no reason why any two editors on such a large site must come into contact with each other. If I can refrain from replying to him in the multiple AfDs he started since the last ANI thread, why the need to reply to me and to no one else in the lone AfD I do comment in since? We don't need to go into mediation. The simplest thing would just be for this thread to be marked as resolved under the passage of either of the first two proposals above, i.e. "Both are editors are warned to avoid each other. Administrators familiar with this thread will block any attempt to escalate tensions again." We shouldn't need anything beyond that. Casliber has already basically said we should leave each other alone. Roux strongly proposed as much last time. Fram proposes as much here as well. There's no need for us to have to iron things out beyond that. We should be able to walk away from each other and work on some of the millions of articles the other isn't working on. And there's no reason why either of us must mention or reply to each other in any RfA or AfD. If after all this, when I want and am willing to not do anything further with regards to him, he still persists in having an interest in me, then I don't know what else to call that. And hopefully after this thread, the community will absolute not see me replying to or commenting to him and by contrast if he does to me, I hope those who participated in this discussion will do something. I don't have a need to start ANI threads if warnings that he leave me alone are followed up on. My hope is that this ANI thread is enough to resolve this here and now. Not take us anywhere else. Here and now the community says, "Enough you two! No more commenting to or about each other. Period." Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC) You both should be able to, but obviously are not. More to the point, the community is getting repeated requests for administrative assistance that it cannot really provide--so the groping attempts to provide it are taking up substantial time that would otherwise go into useful endeavors. There are three books on my desk atm about Latin American art and as soon as this post is done I intend to include content from them in article space hint hint. Can you believe the Peruvian muralist José Sabogal is a one sentence substub? He's the subject of a whole chapter in one of these books. Now there has to be a limit to how long the José Sabogals of the world remain underdeveloped in article space. This is more about time management than anything else. The lines need to be drawn somewhere and this seems like the most reasonable way. DurovaCharge! 17:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Well, not only did I not comment in any of the AFDs he started since the last ANI, I didn't even rescue template them. Why then the need to not only comment in the only AfD I posted in since that thread but to me and only to me? If he didn't do that, and listened to Casliber's talk page plea to "leave me alone", then there would be no ANI thread and I would continue avoiding him. As Kww hints at above, yeah, some may say, "Well, he it's just one AfD comment...", but we're talking about someone who was sanctioned for long-term going after another eidtor (White Cat). Given that, you would think once an admin tells him to leave me alone and he doesn't do so resulting in one ANI thread, why test the waters? My concern here is to stop this now before it goes any further. And all we need is as I say above whatever admin closes this thread to unambiguously state that we are to have nothing to do with each other and violating as much is blockable. I cannot imagine any legitimate reason why anyone could not under such circumstances indeed just walk away from his perceived opponent. We shouldn't need anything more and yes, I would much rather help work on articles than post here, but when someone who was sanctioned for fixating on an editor totally ignores an admin's call that he leaves me alone is incredibly disconcerting and hopefully not the start of a fixation on me. I am willing to take flak and scrutiny from many editors. I am willing to come to terms with many editors, but there is something unsettling with trying that with someone who had to be sanctioned to leave someone else alone. I want to help improve Wikipedia, not have to get into these discussions and I want to be sure that given that editors' history there is no chance that I am starting to become the latest target. I want to stop things now before they get any worse. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC) ANI lends itself to cut and dried situations, which this isn't. You can demonstrate that you have good faith by attempting dispute resolution. Maybe that'll work. If it doesn't, and if you've walked the straight and narrow, then you have nothing to fear from arbitration (which is designed to handle the situations that aren't cut and dried). José Sabogal has three whole sentences now. Pretty soon I'll have time to mention that he was a muralist. ;) DurovaCharge! 17:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Durova, I do not see any value or need in dispute resolution beyond this thread. I don't want someone who has a history of long-term fixation on another editor seeing a need to have to interact with me. There's nothing he and I need to work out, just to avoid each other. I would much rather spend time editing articles and not going back and forth in some dispute resolution thread when all we need is for us to leave each other be and for it to be clear that if either party doesn't indeed do that on-wiki then a neutral admin will indeed take action and I think enough neutral admins have seen this discussion that there should be no need for me to have to start any future ANI threads. It's stuff like this that actually does make me question how safe/good of an idea it is to edit here and what kind of environment it actually is. I am distressed that calling those who defend fiction articles as mere "prattlers" is being glossed over for one thing, but look, we know this editor had to be sanctioned by arbcom to leave one editor alone, he was told by one of his arbcom mentors to leave me alone, and yet continued to comment to/about me. We shouldn't put up that at all. And I shouldn't be expected to wait until things get really bad before seeking admin intervention. The seeds are clearly planted. I do not want this plant to grow. The community gains nothing from any further mediation, which realistically will devolve as that previous ANI thread into some kind of partisan wiki-philosophy debate. The simplest and best thing here is a clear admin warning that we have no further interaction beyond this thread and it be made clear that any breach of it be dealt with. Again, I wouldn't expect him to have to check the edit history to see if I edited an article just to make some grammar fix or to not comment in an RfA because I commented there. But there is absolutely no need for either of us to comment to or about each other in any edit summary, talk page, etc. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC) For God's sake, just shut up already. Consensus is against your claims, so drop the stick and back away from the by-now fully decomposed remains of what was once a merely dead horse. //roux   17:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Consensus is clear that this dispute should end and as such I expect any further comments to or about me by him will be dealt with by any admin so as to prevent further escalation. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC) (outdent) Note that if neither party initiates dispute resolution, I can attempt to initiate it. Thus if they refuse it this can trot over to RFAR without their cooperation. Either way, the admin community won't continue to be burdened with a dilemma it can't solve. DurovaCharge! 18:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Per Casliber and now Fram, i.e. two admin warnings for him to leave me alone with the latter including a warning of a block, I consider my concerns addressed by admins and I hope that these warnings will be heeded and if ignored acted upon. I have nothing further to say and thank Fram for her fairness in this situation. I will not be the one to escalate this any further and hope that this is the end of the matter. Durova, I am starting to help you on that artist article instead. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Note that steps toward dispute resolution have been taken but there is, thus far, a vacant chair at the table. pablohablo. 19:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry, you must not realize the history of this dispute. Jack Merridew-A Nobody Mutual topicban proposal community !vote Two weeks ago, roux suggested and a SB_Johnny, was willing to arbitrate the two editors and came up with a solution that the majority of the community supported. But Jack refused to support this solution. Whereas A nobody immediately supported the solution. Since Jack refused to support this proposal, the community discussed it, and the consensus was that we should follow this proposal. Fram is a very involved editor in this dispute. His proposal requires four comprimises from A nobody, and a vague comprimise from Jack. I don't see Jack rushing to support Durova's proposal either. I suggest a neutral admin look over this past proposal, and make this binding on both parties, a proposal which has the overwhelming support of the community. Ikip (talk) 02:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Good luck finding one, given that every single Wikipedian, including admins, can be so easily pigeonholed and compartmentalized. MuZemike 05:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Ikip, Jack Merridew has no real problems with my proposal ("I'll certainly agree to this sort of thing as an interim measure"), A Nobody considers his "concerns adressed by admins" (including me), but you start labelling me as "a very involved editor in this dispute"? Can you show me where I have previously acted in this dispute or taking sides with one against the other? And I don't see how "Jack Merridew, leave A Nobody alone, don't comment on him, reply to him, or try to needle him otherwise." is "a vague compromise". Please don't stir up more drama just for the sake of it. Fram (talk) 07:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC) nb: you did strongly oppose my unban and declined my offer to talk, so I'd consider you involved re myself. That said, I do see you as trying sort this issue, and offer my thanks. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC) @Ikip; I was asleep; UTC+8. Jack Merridew 08:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC) This is Nonsense - Archive Now This is self-indulgent nonsense that brings Wikipedia into disrepute, reducing our "encyclopedia" to a Junior High Prom dispute. I vote this be archived at once and both parties blocked if they do this kind of crap again. I mean, honestly, *&^*&^ enough already. Eusebeus (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC) As an aside, how does 'badgering' work? Deletion discussions are exactly that -- discussions, not straight votes. — neuro(talk) 01:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC) It's effective primarily because there's a psychological effect on other editors through seeing masses an masses of support for a position and relatively little against, much like people instinctively treat longer rationales as more thoughtful than shorter ones. This makes them more inclined to favour the position, which skews the debate. Furthermore, editors who aren't used to be endlessly pressured on their rationales might choose simply not to comment as they don't have the time to stick around for ten rounds of further questioning on their positions. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Given Merridew's extraordinary history of harassing, i do not really know why he is still allowed to edit. However it seems he came back from being banned here - Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jack_Merridew_ban_review_motion - and is now clearly being a silly bugger, despite that being a last last chance. Casliber, Jayvdb and Moreschi were assigned to deal with him, so perhaps concerns should be brought to them directly. Given the general nature of the response here i must be missing something. I recall mcdevit's comment "I think part of the problem here is that this troll is so persistent he has outlived most of our institutional memory." 86.44.29.76 (talk) 02:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Yes, please – I really don't care what happens, but just end it, already. Or at the very least get this crap off here and reserve this space for stuff that requires immediate admin attention, which is what ANI is meant for in the first place. Go to RFC, RFAR, whatever; don't bring this stuff here again. I'm tired of it, and I'm sure many others are tired of it. MuZemike 05:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Concur – this is ridiculous and needs to stop. ANI isn't the right place for it, especially if neither party is capable of bringing forth a concise post that actually requires admin attention. Close this now. File a case for RFAR for all I care: all of these ANI threads aren't going anywhere. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 05:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Enforcement of mutual topic ban Can an uninvolved administrator look over: Jack_Merridew-A_Nobody Mutual topicban proposal community !vote And determine whether their is community consensus to put this mutual topicban proposal in effect? Ikip (talk) 02:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Abuse

Re Edit War Shami Chakrabati I have no recollection of making the post about being a social worker. When I examined the origin of this it appears that the post was made by someone else using my wikipedia name on 19 April 2009 at 14:47 but signing it with my name at 08:19 I have aroused some controversy with my views on the BNP talk page amongst an explicitly racist sub section of the wiki community and I assume that this is a result of that, particularly as 86.143.99.30 (talk) has no proper identifier. This is particularly heinous abuse and what can I do about it?----Streona (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The offending edit is this one, and it was done by 86.143.99.97 (talk · contribs) --Enric Naval (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I now find that my user page has been edited by someone impersonating me who has deleted my being an anti fascist and anti racist to say that I am ignorant and for some reason that "King Kong ain't got shit on me". I do not object to reasoned debate. I can cope even with the kind of low rent hysterical abuse that characterises these kind of people- by which I mean self-admitted racists and BNP supporters who are almost always anonymous- but I object to being impersonated. The offender is 87.114.2.30 Can the be blocked ? Although they will undobtedly sock puppet again on false IP as ever.--Streona (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've requested page protection for the Shami Chakrabarti, but it looks like Streona's account has been compromised (contributions here) so semi-pp wouldn't stop it.Chris (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The "King Kong" bit is from a sketch on Robot Chicken. Sounds like some kid with too much time on their hands. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

wikihounding IPs

79.132.204.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), only edits so far have been to revert edits made by me, suspect sockpuppet of user:Shir-e-Iran (this IP has already been added to the sock investigation, but I consider the wikistalking to be a separate issue). Wuhwuzdat (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• add another one 84.47.231.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), geolocates to Tehran, same as the last one, same behavior. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• A third, 87.107.37.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), same behavior as previous 2, also geolocates to Tehran. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The first had previously been blocked, I blocked the last two. Not sure how effective this is going to be, given that he is changing IPs between wildly different ranges, and is jumping rather quickly. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    • He's back, 87.107.118.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) same geolocation, now referring to my edits as "Vandalism". Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
      • and again...92.50.30.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) he seems to be a very persistent little bugger. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Who are the service providers of all these IPs? Are these open proxies? C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 09:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• The IP's belong to 4 different ISP's, all based in Tehran. I firmly believe that this incident was started by my recent participation in an AfD for a Tehran based company, an SPI started due to some shenanigans in the AfD and my subsequent Speedy Delete tagging of an recreation of the AfD'd article (page log here), due to the fact that this has been the only contact I have EVER had with anyone in Tehran. As the COI editor who started the AfD'd article was apparently an executive at the company which was the articles subject, I suspect there may be a bit of employee meatpuppetry involved. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

User mass-changing categories

Uranepu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is changing categories on dinosaur articles, despite my requests on his/her talk page to seek consensus before proceeding further. The new categories are redundant and haven't been well thought out. Need a second opinion from uninvolved users. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If the user refuses to discuss it upon another talk page measure, I would take preventative measures for pure lack of willingness to engage. It is highly important that editors be on hand to explain their actions, and not doing so whilst continuing the action is either complete disregard, or a situation which stretches AGF. — neuro^(talk) 01:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

User was still mass-recategorizing without any sign of discussion, so I've implemented a three-hour block. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think they can consider themselves extremely lucky. I just hope they desist once the block expires. C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 09:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Self-identification of a minor

DVDfan12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a self-identified minor who repeatedly adds personally identifying information to their user page. While I know that this type of information is generally acceptable on user pages, in the case of WP:CHILD, I'm not sure this is the case. The information was oversighted at least once previously (or at least hidden) so I'll ping here. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

A 12 year old Mormon from Portugal? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the identifying info again, but I'm sure it will soon be back. I'm not sure about protecting a user page from the user, but it may become necessary. Kevin (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Then he'll just put it on his talk page. Note that he's got various issues. A short-term block (but longer than the previous one) is probably called for, to get that dude's attention. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Logging of active sanctions

Currently, this is the system for logging active sanctions.

The individual editing restrictions here and general sanction schemes on areas here are on separate pages to account for whether a sanction is on an editor or an area. Each page has two sections: one assigned to sanctions imposed by the community (either here or WP:AN or another community venue), and another assigned to sanctions imposed by ArbCom at a decision or via motion.

ArbCom decided that it was going to merge these pages, and put them under Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Active Sanctions. However, putting it here would (imo) create all sorts of confusion and headaches (eg; in terms of restrictions superseding one another, there being no central log of active sanctions, etc.) I also think that given sanction discussions from the community and sanction discussions from arbcom, already occur in different venues, we need to have a central log of the final outcomes. This concern could be satisfied if everything was merged to Wikipedia:Active sanctions. But on the issue of merging, an arbitrator has suggested that because the community has not raised any concerns, the merge should be made. I don't believe many members of the community are aware of this proposal to begin with, so I've brought it here for input by the users who help the community impose sanctions where necessary or oppose them where they are not. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposals on logging active sanctions

Please indicate preferences.

(1) A merge is NOT necessary/preferred by the community; this is fine as it is. This system centralises arb and community sanctions, but has separate pages to distinguish between whether the sanction is on an editor or an area of the encyclopedia.

(2) A merge IS necessary/preferred by the community; everything should be merged to Wikipedia:Active sanctions. This proposed system centralises arb and community sanctions, but does not have separate pages to distinguish between whether the sanction is on an editor or an area of the encyclopedia.

(3) A merge IS necessary/preferred by the community; community sanctions should be merged to Wikipedia:Active Sanctions, while ArbCom sanctions should be merged to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Active Sanctions. This proposed system does not centralise arb and community sanctions, and does not have separate pages to distinguish between whether the sanction is on an editor or an area of the encyclopedia.

• Support 1, then abstain on 2 as second choice. Oppose 3. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support 1, oppose 2 and 3. Very important to distinguish community-based sanctions from arbitration sanctions, since arbitration sanctions necessarily supercede community sanctions. Durova^Charge! 16:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support 1. Keep everything separate. Navigating a page this long could be problematic and create more headaches. Synergy 16:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you please move this discussion to the village pump or one of the arbitration pages? This is a decision for the "community", yes, not the "administrator community". Thanks, Skomorokh 18:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Wikireader41

[34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] These are edits by a highly anti pakistani and islamophobic editor with a obvious pov he has so far escaped punishment mainly due to admins of indian heritage actively supporting his racist attacks i appeal to non hindu and non indian admins to block him 86.151.123.149 (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Apart from kashmir he has now engaged in attacking British Pakistanis by adding contentious comments about terrorism and disability i responded by adding info about british indians which irked him and he soon ran to nishkid a indian admin who manipulated the sentence of mine and toned it down to make it less evident while wikireader is free to attack and deface and when i revert his pov pushing the article is protected indefinately by the one and only nishkid please consider demoting him or atleast reverting wikireader41 edits in british pakistanis 86.151.123.149 (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh... where to begin. Some of the diffs above are fixing typos and formatting, but some would raise eyebrows at Wikiquette Alerts if posted there. All in all, this is hardly an emergency requiring admin intervention, particularly since Nishkid64 has issed a final warning to... wikireader41 - hardly the sign of a biased admin. Meanwhile, the above IP has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Show's over, I think. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

this post is by a banned wikivandal Nangparbat who has a long history of attacking and provoking editors with any kind of connection to India and vandalizing India and Pakistan related articles. he has repeatedly been in conflict with multiple editors and administrators and has been banned from wikipedia for more than 6 months but refuses to stop vandalizing. please ignore his rants.Wikireader41 (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Editor opened similar complaint in WP:WQA, which I have closed as NWQA due to "Opened at WP:ANI afterwards, and since complainant doesn't think warnings will help, that is the proper forum" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

History of Jennifer Fitzgerald

For some reason, my account is credited with creating this article; I did not, and my edits built upon a version of the article created by others. Can someone fix this GFDL violation? I don't want to take credit for another's work, however problematic. Thanks, Skomorokh 18:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Restored the history. See User talk:Icestorm815#Jennifer Fitzgerald. –xeno ^talk 18:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Muchas gracias, xeno. Skomorokh 18:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It may be worthwhile to initiate a discussion somewhere on how to handle sitautions like this. You clearly build your 4/20 stub version on the previous content, yes? So the history is required for proper GFDL attribution, but the concern is that the history still contains much of the potentially WP:BLP-violating material. –xeno ^talk

This does seem to be a bit of a dilemma. One option would be to do a mass oversighting. It retains the GDFL attribution but removes the BLP concerns. However I'd much rather prefer something less drastic if possible. Any other possible ideas? Icestorm815 • Talk 00:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

perhaps make a revision with the edit summary "see Talk:JF/GFDL for contribution history of article prior to this revision", then delete everything prior? –xeno ^talk 01:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Multiplyperfect

Can somebody take a close look at the contributions of Multiplyperfect (talk · contribs) and possibly take action in light of Obama article probation. There aren't many so it shouldn't be too hard, but the user has been given warnings and still continues. Thanks, Grsz¹¹ 19:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, he knows he's on his last chance. If another admin feels that he's gone too far, I will support any reasonable sanction. Note that this is essentially an SPA so a block and ban would be roughly synonymous. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed in this case the editor has been warned a number of times. I do wonder, however, if experienced editors should be more careful when dealing with new SPAs who exhibit troll-like behavior. The potential is high that accounts like this are just socks, or editors here just to pull our leg. But assuming good faith, it may well be a young or inexperienced editor who simply has a fascination for negative Obama trivia and wants to explore that here on Wikipedia. If you have a fascination however unhealthy with antique steam engines or species of extinct insects, and you add a whole bunch of little snippets about that to the encyclopedia, you're welcomed and gently guided to the appropriate style guidelines, content policies, and behavior rules. An editor whose fascination happens to be conservative politics gets much rougher treatment. My fear is that these people may be well meaning, just misguided. Calling them trolls on the talk page, cursing at them, taunting, insulting, etc., may well be a self-fulfilling accusation because it may sour them on the project and fuel any paranoia they may have about Wikipedia being a censorship cabal. Just a thought. We'll probably deal with this question in more depth in the arbcom hearing. Meanwhile, can I ask for some courtesy and decorum even when dealing with trouble? Wikidemon (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

An editor who posts "little snippets" about antique steam engines that are factually incorrect or intended to "pull our leg" would be dealt with in exactly the same way, and rightfully so. Nothing to do with politics or "decorum", everything to do with maintaining the accuracy and reliability of the reference resource we're supposedly building here. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 20:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That's the ideal for sure. But (1) we can't presume bad faith - my concern regards the possibility that some are misguided newbies, not intentionally misbehaving, and (2) even in the worst case scenario, it does more harm than good to harangue trolls on an article talk page. Wikidemon (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd expect a good faith newbie to react in some way to policy/guideline links and explanations being posted on their user talk page. In this case, the user just seems to keep on going. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

User is clearly not here to contribute constructively. Time to show them the door. Mike R (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The user has been adequately warned, and indeed SheffieldSteel bent over backwards to explain the situation. I think we are easily at the point where the next talk page note along the lines of this one will mean an indef block and I would certainly implement that myself. I don't think we need to stress about this because it will be over one way or another shortly, though I do want to echo the gist of what Wikidemon said above about assuming good faith on these articles, hard as that may be at times. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Requesting block of User:Drittes Reich 1940, deletion of userpage

Resolved

 – User blocked, userpage deleted. –xeno ^talk 22:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Drittes Reich 1940: That is, Third Reich 1940. Some highlights from the user's userpage:

• "This user is proud to be a Nazi"
• "This user thinks British people are the main cause of problems in the world" (accompanied by the Nazi-era Reichsadler)
• "This user is strongly in favor of dropping a nuclear bomb over Britain to get rid of vicious trouble makers" (accompanied by File:Nagasakibomb.jpg)

--Rrburke^(talk) 21:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a sock of User:NeMiStIeRs. Blocked by User:John Carter before I could do so. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It was a softblock. You should reblock if you are sure of this. I've deleted the UP. –xeno ^talk 21:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The subject didn't take kindly to being blocked, and added some obscenities to my user page twice, showing true subtlety by signing himself as Drittes Reich 1940. I blocked the IP indefinitely. I may have been hasty, please feel free to modify as desired. John Carter (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've set an expiry (1mo). –xeno ^talk 22:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Block looks good. Cirt (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

More edit-warring by Badagnani

• Badagnani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Same old story as documented in his RfC/U, the many 3RR reports on him, and most recently, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive532#User:Badagnani.

This time he reverts 17 edits made by three editors (myself, Quiddity, and Gwalla) [42], then reverts Quiddity's attempt to restore the material: [43].

His contribution to the talk page between these two edits, and only recent comment even vaguely relevant to his reverts, is one about working together: [44] --Ronz (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Block threats from Admin User:OhNoitsJamie

Please note User_talk:Mbhiii#WP:POINT posted by Admin User:OhNoitsJamie. I edited 5 articles he had recently. Each one of my edits (Monsanto-Rottweiler) was for good cause. He didn't like it and threatens to block me. This is the second time I've brought him to the attention of other Admins. The first was over his repeated, inappropriate blocking on March 19-20th. Please, straighten him out, again. Thanks, MBHiii (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mbhiii. Looie496 (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that your edits were "good cause"; you replaced unsourced material without citing a source, merely expressing most optimistically that "someone can find a source". Please see WP:BURDEN on that one. The congruence of articles tends me towards a certain opinion, and that is that you should WP:DISENGAGE and edit some different articles, and citing sources. I can't disagree with his message on your Talk page, but another admin should apply the block. Only time will tell if, when, and who that will be. Rodhullandemu 22:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed both Mbhiii's recent edits and Ohnoitsjamie's recent edits - I agree with Jamie that Mbhiii is editing disruptively at the moment. I have warned Mbhiii that further disruption will result in a block. Also notifying Jamie about this thread... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't even recall your first "report" about me...I don't see any edits from your account on March 19-20th relating to an ANI report. It's clear that your recent reverts were "retaliatory" edits because I'd declined your sixth or seventh unblock request. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Question. Is this user contributing such benefit through her constructive edits that it outweighs the amount of disruption she's causing? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Which user are you referring to? I only ask because you specifically used "she" (which I am not, but commonly assumed to be). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to User:Mbhiii; I have a habit of just assuming that everyone is female until I learn otherwise. In my opinion, the benefit provided to the encylopedia by User:Ohnoitsjamie does indeed outweigh the amount of annoyance he causes. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Whew, glad to hear that. I'll do my best to keep the scales tipped in that direction. ;)OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Edokter edit-warring, gaming the system, incivility

Edokter (talk · contribs) is growing somewhat prickly in the Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica) article. This is much the same sort of argument that was brought to light a few weeks ago, and the arguments are essentially the same. After it was decided that opinions as to inclusion or exclusion of certain info in the article, most of us decided to participate in mediation to get a neutral voice into the discussion, and help solve the issue. I am not going to go into it, as its a content issue.

After Edokter decided to participate in the mediation, he expressed his opinion (along with the rest of us). However, his opinions, which included singling me out for specific personal attacks, started again, increasing in intensity until it boiled over a little while ago. Despite the fact that mediation and discussion is ongoing in article talk, Edokter suddenly and unilaterally decided that discussion over and has repeatedly added the same information into the article, complete with veiled threats in the edit summaries of these additions. Again, I am not discussing the content of these edits, but it bears mentioning in addition to seeking to end-run the mediation without anything approximating a consensus, the information he is adding doesn't match the citations.

This has happened a few times before, and at least once before in this article that I am aware of. I am unsure how to proceed, as Edokter's tone in the discussion has gone from unpleasant to hostile. If he doesn't want to mediate, he shouldn't sign up for it.

Lastly, I am reporting this here because Edokter has a history of blocking those editors with whom he disagrees with in article discussion. I'd prefer to not be subjected to that again. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• Page has been protected for 1 week. I don't have a comment on the behavioral issues. Would you mind posting a few diffs which exemplify the behavior (I've read the two you linked)? Also, have you informed him of this thread? Protonk (talk) 23:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

History of blocking? Incivility? Really... Put the evidence on the table or shut up! Let's see what is happening here. Arcayne has an opinion, and needs 1,208,465 posts to meake his position clear, even though is is going completely against consensus. Yet he keeps beating the dead horse and declares all other opinions 'against policy'... at least his interpretation of it.

This is a content dispute, and the mediator hasn't chimed in yet, yet Arcayne removes the infomrmation anyway. Pot, meet kettle. Arcayne, you need to stop it. I invite all available administrators to go to Talk:Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica), see the entire discussion, then finally see the complete and utter nonsense that Arcayne has been poisoning the talk page with. And deal with it this time! Seriously folks, had I been an uninvolved party, I would have blocked Arcayne indeed. I want closure now. — Edokter • Talk • 23:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Eye of the Lion

Resolved

 – Indef'd

Eye of the Lion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User's primary purpose seems to be attacking other editors. He also vandalized the AIV page, deleting this posting before an admin could evaluate it. I put it back there. Posting it here also, for whoever sees it first. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef for disruptive editing, but if anyone thinks that this is too harsh and sees signs of a potential productive editor emerging, feel free to reduce or remove the block. Bencherlite^Talk 23:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Given his comments post-block, I entirely agree. Rodhullandemu 00:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Unlike the user who was the subject of Lion's attacks, I hardly ever get threats of violence. Maybe my crocodile farm is the deterrent. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Block User:CommonsDelinker - negative non-obvious bot powered contributions detrimental to the project.

Can someone block this stupid thing? This edit [45] was entirely counter-productive. Sure it removed the link to the deleted image on commons but spectacularly failed to notice there was a previous perfectly good image used before leaving the article with no image, and no redlink to the deleted image to alert a HUMAN editor to the problem so they could check the article history. The only reason it was picked up was I had visited the article recently and knew there was a perfectly good freely licensed image there at that point and went digging to see where it had gone.

This is a net NEGATIVE to the project - we shouldn't tolerate edits that degrade the encyclopedia from a bot account that doesn't conform to our naming conventions on bots, isn't mantained on the english wikipedia by anyone and requires running off to commons if there's a problem. Block immediately and permanently. Exxolon (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose and disagree with the evaluation. The deleted image is in copyvio, so the bot is doing its job properly. --Caspian blue 00:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • No it's NOT. It's making it harder to correct problems where a freely licensed image is replaced by a copyvio. That's then correctly deleted as one but this thing then deletes all references to the change to it so you end up with NO image and NO clue that there was ever one there. Exxolon (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
    • That's your thought and why don't you calm down? Bot is bot.--Caspian blue 00:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

An edit that fixes broken syntax is "entirely counter-productive"? The inability of a bot to detect the existence of a suitable alternative image is a "spectacular failure"? A broken page is a better notification of an image problem than an informative edit summary? Hesperian 01:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Damn straight. Check [46] - this is the version of the page the bot left - no image, no indication there ever was any image, no clues, no nothing. The redlink is better left unremoved - this can alert a HUMAN editor to a problem, they can then check the history and fix the issue. Exxolon (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Exxolon, I can understand your frustration, but I don't think there's much alternative. I don't even want to think about writing a bot that would search the history of an article looking for the last time there was a valid image. At the same time, we can't very well have red link images scattered about. Get mad at the person who put the bad image on the article in the first place, and get mad that not enough people are watching the article and familiar enough with it to know that images are available. Wknight94 ^talk 01:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with those above who find that this particular bot is doing nothing wrong. However, we have a bot that goes and "rescues" citations from previous versions of a page. How about either making a new bot, or adjusting this bot, to drop a note on the talk page if there was a commons or other still-available image removed from the page and reflected in its history, prior to the more recent copyvio removal? bd2412 T 01:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Redlinks to files are never helpful, as files typically have either cryptic or highly specific names which don't help anything. I see this as a case where the system worked. The bot made an edit removing a bad image link. You, a watchful editor, added a good image in place of its absence. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Note: this bot also produces some broken syntax on en-wiki. Recent example: [47]. Gimmetrow 01:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm going to ask a template guy, but I think that syntax breaking is the fault of the template not failing gracefully when no image is present. Protonk (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I was looking into it, and I think it may be a bug in ParserFunctions. There is simply no reason why that if clause should be invoked when the logo argument is blank. Hesperian 01:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
      • The problem is that the field contains the character U+200e, the left-to-right mark. Presumably it was inserted by someone's copy-paste when they inserted the image filename. The bot should be able to easily detect that the field after image removal consists only of that character and handle the situation, but to date the operator has not done so. Anomie⚔ 01:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Anomie is correct as to the cause of that specific bug. The bot operator was informed months ago. Gimmetrow 01:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Ah. Ok. Protonk (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Exxolon, I can understand your frustration.... Not me; I have no idea what you're carrying on about. Judging by your edit summary in response to that bot edit, I'd say you need to go have a lie down.[48] Hesperian 01:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• The bot removes deleted images. Often, however, an image that gets deleted replaced another image, and the bot doesn't restore that other image. The effect of the bot, in many cases, is to hide the removal of good images from articles. I think that's what Exxolon is frustrated about. Gimmetrow 01:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that this version after the bot edit is preferable to this version before. As a bot operator and member of the Bot Approvals Group, I do not believe that a bot can reliably determine whether an acceptable image was recently replaced with a version that was deleted from Commons. I'll go on record saying I'd approve this bot if it were up for approval today to do just what Exxolon is complaining about. On the other hand, the unrelated bug Gimmetrow mentions is legitimate, if relatively minor. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think the unrelated bug is legitimate. Templates should be able to handle empty parameters robustly. Strangely, both the implementation of this template and its documentation suggests that it can handle empty parameters. I think Gimmetrow may have found a ParserFunctions bug. Hesperian 01:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not an empty parameter. There is an invisible unicode character (see above) in the field. Gimmetrow 01:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

So to sum up, for those following along at home: Exxolon's original complaint (removing redlinks) is not valid. Gimmetrow's secondary complaint (failing to remove invisible characters when removing images) is valid. It's a subtle bug, and no one holds it against the bot-op that he didn't catch it. However, he's been unresponsive in fixing it once it was brought to his attention, and that's a problem. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

...and per BD2412's comment, someone may want to request a bot that would attempt to rescue good images that were replaced by bad images. Wknight94 ^talk 02:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Block request for User:Erniebelmonte

Requesting a block of Erniebelmonte for repeatedly recreating deleted pages with copyvio. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 02:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

User had already been warned not to do that repeatedly, was given a final warning, and then 15 min later went and did it again. I have indef blocked. If they come back and agree to abide by our copyright policy, and indicate that they understand it properly, I have no objection to any admin unblocking however. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Given that his first edit was the creation of another copyvio article (Becky Dixon, just deleted after I tagged it), as well as this cute edit, I'd recommend that an admin think twice about unblocking. Someone may want to take a look at the categories he created, too; there may be nothing wrong with them per se, but he's been adding them to some articles where the text doesn't support the categorization. Deor (talk) 02:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)