Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Raul654, William M Connolley, and KimDabelsteinPetersen on the Lawrence Solomon BLP

Raul654 has just full protected Lawrence Solomon ostensibly because of the edit warring that was occurring there over whether to include a properly sourced statement that Solomon is an environmentalist. Raul has previously edit warred himself over this very same topic (see [1], [2]) in WP:TAGTEAM fashion in support of User:William M. Connolley. The current dispute involves a number of members from "team" User:William M. Connolley notably including User:KimDabelsteinPetersen along with their other usual supporters who shall not be enumerated here. Both User:William M. Connolley and User:KimDabelsteinPetersen are strongly resisting the inclusion of a properly and adequately sourced statement that Solomon is an environmentalist. Given that Solomon had published public accounts of his interactions with both User:William M. Connolley and User:KimDabelsteinPetersen which were of a seriously critical nature, I believe it is fair to say that these two editor's have a conflict of interest on this BLP and should not be obstructing the inclusion of properly sourced material.

UPDATE: The publications related to WMC and KDP include but may not be limited to the following:

1. Wikipedia's Zealots: Solomon
2. Hide your name on Wicked Pedia: Solomon
3. Wikipropaganda

I seek a discussion and a decision on the following matters:

1. Regardless of whether this particular page protection is appropriate, or not, it is clear that Raul654 was involved in this specific content dispute and he should NOT be using his administrative tools to lock the content of this page AT ALL. I seek appropriate sanctions against Raul654 for his use of administrative tools while involved in the dispute.
2. Both User:William M. Connolley and User:KimDabelsteinPetersen have sufficient reason and desire to disrupt the on-going development of this BLP to the detriment of the subject and their actions there are demonstrating that they intend to do so. They both have a clear conflict of interest with respect to this particular article and their objectivity there cannot be assumed. As such I seek a page and talk page ban against each of them for the Lawrence Solomon BLP so that we can avoid future disruptive actions on their parts.

--GoRight (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have placed notices on the talk pages of Lawrence Solomon, User:Raul654, User:William M. Connolley, and User:KimDabelsteinPetersen. --GoRight (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Why didn't you include me? I feel unloved. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't have a conflict of interest on that page. --GoRight (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Cos no-one loves yah, bebe :-). In the unlikely event of anyone thinking that GR is an uninterested party in all this, be aware of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley, and the tedious cabal nonsense; GR's request here is yet more water-muddying. The current dispute is over the inclusion of the word "environmentalist" or not; it is not at all clear how inclusion, or exclusion, of this word can be to the detriment of the subject. Since [3] in 2008-09-26 I have precisely one edit to this page; GR's allegations of intent to disrupt are absurd William M. Connolley (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to the page are readily available in the article history. They speak for themselves. --GoRight (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

So are Raul's. Why don't they speak for themselves. What are you on about? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, why don't GoRight's own edits speak for themselves? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Both Raul's and my own edits also speak for themselves on our respective levels of involvement and whether our edits are good faith attempts to improve the article, or not. I'll trust the uninvolved here to decide for themselves. --GoRight (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

GoRight trusts the "community" when that community involves himself and a whole lot of Scibaby sockpuppets which he can use to falsely claim consensus. Raul654 (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

By my count, zero Scibaby socks have contributed here. Cool Hand Luke 17:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

← I guess I see a few issues here:

• Was protection appropriate? There was a full-blown edit war going on. If I saw a request at WP:RFPP with that sort of page history, I'd almost certainly protect the page. One could argue that un-aged sockpuppets were contributing a huge amount of the edit-warring, and that semi-protection would be more appropriate upfront - I suppose that would be reasonable as well.
• Should Raul654 have taken action here? Don't know. The definition of "involvement" keeps changing - between written policy and ArbCom findings, we have at least 3 or 4 mutually contradictory definitions, some of which Raul654 violated and some which he clearly did not. His last edit to the page was nearly 1 year ago, but it did involve the same issue of the "environmentalist" descriptor.
• Conflict of interest. I'm sorry, but I completely and utterly reject that. Someone is unhappy with an editor's work on Wikipedia, and publishes their unhappiness in a sympathetic venue - OK, it's happened before. But that doesn't disqualify said editor, unless their edits are objectionable in and of themselves on grounds of our policies. Let's say that a vitamin salesman encourages people with a deadly disease to abandon effective treatment in favor of his products. I edit an article on the subject on Wikipedia, with reference to appropriate sources. He doesn't like it and attacks me on his website in moderately threatening terms. Hypothetically, of course. Have I just acquired a "conflict of interest"?

I'd be curious to hear some thoughts on these points. MastCell ^Talk 17:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Call it a conflict of interest or whatever else you wish, but given these accounts which were published in national media, not someone's WP:SPS website with no readership, their objectivity and judgment with respect to Solomon can reasonably be considered clouded and thus their objectivity can be reasonably called into question. Based on that alone a page and talk page ban would be appropriate for this single article. As for whether their edits are objectionable under out policies, or not, there are a number of editors who believe that they are. The discussion on the talk page makes that clear enough. --GoRight (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious about your charge that your fellow editors "have sufficient reason and desire to disrupt" the Solomon article. How do you know they have the "desire" to disrupt? Have they said so? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Their edits to the main space page combined with their commentary on the talk page. --GoRight (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

So your view is that a preference for objective third-party references rather than op-eds and self-published sources constitutes a desire to disrupt? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that their respective edits and comments indicate that they intend to obstruct the introduction of appropriately sourced material into the article which could be considered positive towards the subject of the BLP, and in that sense they are being disruptive. That they freely undertook these actions speaks to the issue of their desire. That they were publicly chastised by Solomon speaks to their motive, and therefore to the need for a page ban to prevent further disruption of the article. --GoRight (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

GoRight's concerns seem to be quite legitimate. Raul, WMC and a couple of others seem to be very involved and opinionated on the subject matter involved yet they haven using their admin tools in relation to the subject. This seems very improper, not to mention the problems with the apparent POV pushing that's going on. If they want to work and collaborate on the article I think that's fine, but using their admin tools to advance a position is totally unacceptable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

3 questions (simply because i've been mentioned as an involved party by GoRight - otherwise i will try to stay out of the dramah..):

• How exactly have admin tools been used to advance a position?
• And what exactly is improper in the discussions?
• What POV pushing has been going on?

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Um, for starters, protecting the page when he has an interest in the dispute? Thatcher 19:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Arguable, as argued above (not by me). However, do you think CoM might perhaps be a bit more careful about flinging around plurals? Unless I (or someone else?) is supposed to have used admin tools here? And, just to be clear, the "POV pushing" that we're arguing about is whether LS gets to be called an env or not? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't help it if some editors try to throw the kitchen sink into every dispute. In my view, Raul654 is so partisan on the issue of climate change that he should not use his admin or checkuser tools in this area. This is a general position and people are free to disagree. In this specific case, protecting an article where two of the editors involved in the dispute were yourself and GoRight (given Raul's participation in your Arbitration case and his repeated calls for banning GoRight) was not appropriate. And this is not the first such incident. Thatcher 20:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

What position was Raul advancing? I'm rather confused here, we have a plethora of scibaby sockpuppets here, which seems to be the main reason for the protection (and btw. for Raul's participation both in 2008 and in 2009). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

He appears to be advancing the position that Solomon is not an environmentalist, something that he personally fought for last year. (This is, by the way, a particularly idiotic form of edit war, since it relies on both sides heavily relying on the fallacy appeal to authority. I can call myself an environmentalist because I recycle my pop cans and use a water filter instead of bottled water. What difference does it make in reality if American Spectator calls Solomon an environmentalist? None, of course. His claims and writings stand or fall on their merits. But you folks are fighting over a label because you perceive that the label conveys more authority than his actual writings. I've seen a lot of fighting over labels and appeals to authority on the ethnic geopolitical disputes. Funny to see it here among a bunch of scientists.) Thatcher 20:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Erm? You seem to have misunderstood the discussion.. I am not opposing an inclusion of the description that Solomon is an environmentalist, in fact i have yet to see anyone do so. What is asked for is a reliable source, that isn't an opinion article or a self-published whatever, (ie. something that is reliable for BLP info without the "X describes Y as ...") to establish this particular factoid. I was of the impression (apparently mistaken) that if asked, we must document/reference information? Or have i for some reason completely misread WP:V? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

As an involved editor, I would like to throw my own 2 cents into this discussion concisely, give my full support to GoRight's motion, and then withdraw.

1. COI concerns: the case is stronger against William Connolley than it is against KDP because not only has Solomon written against Connolley but Connolley has responded in kind against Solomon, and has argued in a page still available in his blog (here), that Solomon is essentially a fraud, and not an environmentalist. KDP claims not to be offended by Solomon's writings against him, and I am inclined to believe him. Still, conflicts of interest are not, in normal situations, resolved by asking the potentially conflicted individual about how they feel. :)
2. Concerning Solomon & environmentalist: we have a large amount of source material giving S and an environmentalist. Twice, I have take sources to the RS/N and the verdict was that KDP's & WMC's reasoning against the material was invalid (in the first case it was slightly more complicated than I present here, but my summary is accurate). On the instance of the Financial Post biography, KDP & WMC continue to insist that it is a WP:SPS, apparently in outright contradiction of the WP policies. It seems to me, therefore, that the two editors are ignoring both consensus against their position, and the rules.
3. Concerning the page protection, that's just bizarre; there was no edit warring occurring as far as I know (I certainly wasn't editing the page).
4. Finally, I may not have helped the situation as I must admit that my frustration over the many days I've spent in this argument has erupted into my comments on the page; sorry. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

GoRight (again)

Previously discussed: [4][5][6]

In addition to the above issues mentioned by WMC and Boris, there are several thing that bear mentioning.

First, GoRight's diffs to claim my "involvement" are ancient. I have not edited this article in almost a year. His claims of involvement are completely without merit. Using his ridiculous interpretation of "involvement", admins would be prohibited from taking administrative actions on any article they have ever edited. This is not an accident - GoRight frequently claims involvement by the admins most familiar with his misbehavior in order to avoid being sanctioned for that misbehavior. (Abd proposed something along these lines in the on-going arbitration case, and it was rejected almost unanimously by the community as a transparent attempt to disqualify those most suited to deal with his disruption)

Second, as the one adding the material, the onus is on GoRight to provide sources to back up his claim. The sources he cites have repeatedly been debunked on the talk page as op-eds or self-published sources. Thus, he is in violation of WP:BLP.

Third, the current edit war is yet another instance of GoRight proxy editing for banned user Scibaby. GoRight's edits: [7][8]; Scibaby's edits: [9][10][11][12][13]. This is the 6th or 7th incident of GoRight acting as a proxy for banned users in as many months, and the 3rd or 4th in the last few weeks. (He does it for Scibaby quite a lot, and recently has taken to doing it for Abd)

Fourth, related to the above, when I protected the page, I gave two reasons -- edit warring and sockpuppetry. GoRight conviently omitted the latter from his description.

I think a substantial block for GoRight, for repeatedly and willfully violating the 'no proxying' policy (Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them. --Wikipedia:Banning policy) is in order.

When a previous community ban discussion was mentioned here, GoRight outright lied -- he claimed he would adhere to a self-imposed 1rr, a promise which he promptly ignored as soon as the discussion was over. I think a topic ban from global warming articles is also in order, as he contributes little or nothing of value while causing much disruption. Raul654 (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Raul leaves out, of course, that I have been working in good faith on the talk page to resolve this issue and that I am NOT the only editor asserting this material so any claims of my meat puppeting are absurd, unless he wants to level the charge against ALL of those asserting this material as well which, as you will note, he has not. He is being selective for an obvious purpose given his history of seeking sanctions against me and being rebuffed each time. His previous attempt at this meat puppet accusation was investigated and rejected, [14].

My previous pledge of adopting WP:1RR served its purpose between when it was made and now. I hereby rescind that pledge moving forward. --GoRight (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Just curious, when did you make the 1RR pledge? Was it recent? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

See this. He made the promise on August 7 of last year. As soon as the discussion was over, he promptly ignored the promise, and participated in the many of his revert wars 12 days later. Raul654 (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Would it not be more appropriate to rescind the pledge *before* breaking it rather than *after*? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, yes. The part being left out here is that the pledge was to make a good faith effort, not to be 100% perfect. I believe that my editing record since then will support the assertion that any violations between then and now are exceptions rather than the rule. --GoRight (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that my editing record since then will support the assertion that any violations between then and now are exceptions rather than the rule. - your editing record disagrees. Raul654 (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said, exceptions ... not the rule. But please DO read Raul's WP:ATTACKPAGE and then read my edits in context to judge for yourself Raul's veracity in such matters. --GoRight (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

GoRight's sole purpose for editing Wikipedia seems to be to sabotage our coverage of global warming and to denigrate editors in good standing. Why on earth has he been tolerated for so long? A ban is richly merited so that we can get on with improving Wikipedia instead of wasting our time humoring his attempts to harm it. --TS 17:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and the continual tit-for-tat that GoRight has been engaging has worn the community's patience. seicer | talk | contribs 18:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I've started a discussion of this issue below. Please voice your opinions there. Raul654 (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Tony, "sabotage" is a pretty serious charge. I'm sure you have links supporting this, right? ATren (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about Tony, but I sure do. And note that that page only covers the September 2008-April 2009 period. If I updated it for his behavior since April, it would be about 5 times longer. Raul654 (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

(note, I have added my signature to my earlier edit, above). Raul, that evidence was presented in the RfC you started on GoRight, right? If he wasn't banned then, what new information do you have to justify a ban now? As I recall, when I looked at that evidence many months ago, I looked at 10 links from your evidence, and none of it backed up what you were claiming. I gave up looking after that. ATren (talk) 02:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it was not. As the first sentence says, everything there is stuff he did after the RFC and the community ban discussion last August. I looked at 10 links from your evidence, and none of it backed up what you were claiming. - that's because you have a history of defending his misbehavior. Your incredulity is hardly convincing counter evidence. Raul654 (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What I find concerning is that GoRight has been on Wikipedia for very nearly 2 years, as made around 3500 edits, but only 12% of them in article space.[15] Moreover, as far as I can figure out from the edit counter, he has not made one single edit that is not either connected with global warming or global warming and fringe science conflict resolution - invariably pushing the fringe side. This does not look like somebody who is interested in the project except as a vehicle to push his own POV. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Already addressed in previous discussions. I am a self-acknowledged single purpose account which does not disqualify me from participating on the project. My purpose here is to address what I perceive as being a systemic bias on the global warming pages and to move those articles which are affected into a more WP:NPOV position. I believe that this is a valuable contribution to the encyclopedia. I also seek to remove bias from the BLP's of the global warming skeptics in support of not only WP:NPOV but WP:BLP as well (with this discussion being an example of a WP:NPOV concern rather than a WP:BLP one). --GoRight (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that the issue of proxy editing/meatpuppetry was presented in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Scibaby and the people who reviewed Raul's argument there did not agree with his conclusion that GoRight had violated the BAN policy. As Raul notes above, the BAN policy allows editors to redo edits made by banned users as long as they take responsibility for the content. At that point the question is not whether they are replacing edits by banned users, but whether or not the content of the edits themselves is problematic. That may be the case in other edits by GoRight, but I don't think the proxying/meatpuppetry claim has merit. Nathan ^T 20:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

As Raul notes above, the BAN policy allows editors to redo edits made by banned users as long as they take responsibility for the content. - almost, but not quite. It says you can restore edits if you take responsibility for them, and they are verifiable, and you "have independent reasons for making them" (--Wikipedia:Banning policy). If you make an edit because a banned user did it first, you are not making them independently, and you do not qualify for that exception. Your action is simply proxy editing. This totally demolishes claims that GoRight's edits were OK. And, in the Scibaby discussion above, not a single person other than myself ever addressed this issue. Raul654 (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess since we're quoting policy, it is important that we be accurate. The text of the policy as of this moment reads: Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them. and also Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users in violation of the ban, and such edits may be viewed as meatpuppetry. Users who reinstate such edits take complete responsibility for the content by so doing. So not "make them independently" - have independent reasons (i.e. don't put them back based only on who made them). I think that we did discuss the meaning of the BAN policy and the MEAT policy, and we came to a conclusion at odds with your own. Nathan ^T 20:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC) (Note that my comment here was in reply to [16] this version of Raul's comments directly above; he modified his comment before my reply was posted, and I didn't notice the change).

Your position is absurd. When was the last time someone reverted with the edit summary that they were restoring an edit because person X made it? Has that ever happened? Because you are saying that is the only condition under which someone would be guilty of proxy editing. Otherwise, they could always claim to have independent reasons for making the edits. Raul654 (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It's the plain meaning of the policy as written, and not unreasonable - it means that we judge non-banned editors based on the content of their edits rather than who has made similar or identical edits previously. This standard does nothing to protect an editor (GoRight or anyone else) from being blocked or banned based on the content of his or her edits or other behavior; the purpose, as it appears to me, is to allow positive content to remain in the encyclopedia even if it was initially added by a banned user. Nathan ^T 22:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Should we consider deleting "Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users in violation of the ban" from the policy? That's the bit that appears to be the sticking point. You and others are arguing that it's generally OK to reinstate such edits, so perhaps policy doesn't reflect current practice. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It's the plain meaning of the policy as written, - no, it's not. The plain meaning of "have independent reasons for making them" means you are making it independent of the person who made it originally. If your reason for doing it is because someone else did it first (which can be inferred easily from editing behavior and does not have to be explicitly stated), then you are not independent.

and not unreasonable - I stand by my above comment. Under you interpretation of the policy, the only way someone can ever be guilty of proxy editing is if they post an edit summary saying they were restoring an edit because person X made it first.

it means that we judge non-banned editors based on the content of their edits rather than who has made similar or identical edits previously. - this is absolutely, 100% wrong. If you see that a banned editor makes an edit that you happen to agree with, you are *not* permitted to restore it. Being banned means just that -- not permitted to participate on Wikipedia. Otherwise, we send a signal to every banned user that it's OK to flaunt a ban, because someone might agree with you and edit war in your favor.

This standard does nothing to protect an editor (GoRight or anyone else) from being blocked or banned based on the content of his or her edits or other behavior - this is irrelevant. Of course if someone does other bad things in addition to proxy editing, they can be blocked. The issue at question is whether restoring edits by banned user is permitted. And the plain reading of the policy shows that it is not.

the purpose, as it appears to me, is to allow positive content to remain in the encyclopedia even if it was initially added by a banned user. - Absolutely not. The purpose is to discourage banned users from coming back and violating their bans in the hopes that someone will side with them -- which is exactly what is happening here. Raul654 (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

In the case of my restoring ANY edit my independent reason for making the change is that I believe that it improves the encyclopedia, and as I have stated many times I take full responsibility for the content that I restore. If the content I have restored is a problem then block or ban me based on that, not based on the actions of someone else and over whom I have no control. --GoRight (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that it improves the encyclopedia - thank you for proving my point, that under Nathan's interpretation of the proxying policy, it's basically impossible to violate because no matter how damaging the proxy edits are, the person will always claim to be doing it for the good of the encyclopedia. Raul654 (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

And as I have made perfectly clear, I accept full responsibility for the content I add to the encyclopedia. If that content is damaging then block or ban me for that, if not then your argument is moot. --GoRight (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Raul, I previously suggested that you drop this theory. As I pointed out at the PD talk page, every uninvolved user shares "Nathan's interpretation." The community does not think that the policy means what you claim it does. Because policy is derived from community norms (rather than vice versa), it flatly does not mean what you claim. Instead, focus on how GoRight's editing is bad; trying to catch him in an absurd technicality tends to turn people off (as you can see above). Cool Hand Luke 15:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence "Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users in violation of the ban, and such edits may be viewed as meatpuppetry" from WP:BAN, as it appears no longer to reflect community consensus and to be producing needless confusion. By obviating disputes over this wording we should have one less source of conflict. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that goes a little too far. I think we all agree that editors must take full responsibility for the content of such reinstated edits. I've revised it. Cool Hand Luke 17:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that you added "Users should generally refrain from knowingly reinstating edits made by banned users in violation of their ban" in light of yours and others' comments here, which state that editors are free to reinstate edits made by banned users as long as they take responsibility for the content of those edits. I think it's important for the policy to be clear. It has caused too much conflict and misunderstanding. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I re-added that because editors do in fact tend to avoid restoring these edits. I think it's a best practice. But at the same time, I don't think restoring comments should be sanctionable as long as they take full responsibility for the edits—its' sanctionable if they're personal attacks, DE, and so forth. Probably needs more work; should ask folks on the talk page. Cool Hand Luke 17:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

GoRight community ban

Previously discussed: [17][18][19]

Proposal: GoRight is banned from global warming-related articles and talk pages.

Support

• Long overdue. Raul654 (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Far overdue. The proxy editing alone should have been grounds for a longish block. --Calton | Talk 21:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Are you alleging that GoRight, an account since October 2007, was editing the article at the direction of Scibaby, and not from their own interpretation of Wikipedia's rules? If you are, then you need to provide evidence. If not, or are unable to provide such evidence, then I think you should retract the above statement and apologise. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

• This is ridiculous. Raul has been pursuing GoRight for over a year now. His latest was a completely unfounded "Scibaby meatpuppet" accusation that was quickly closed. This continued pursuit of GoRight by Raul must stop. Just because GoRight doesn't agree with Raul, doesn't give Raul the right to repeatedly try to chase him off. ATren (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  Do you have a registered account? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that. ATren (talk) 02:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Absolutely. Any question of a ban should be directed toward Raul654 and his persistent targeting of GoRight, and his use of sysop flags within articles where his adversary opinions well known. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  I don't think encouraging a tendentious editor's paranoia is a good idea there. Note also who, exactly, brought the complaint here and the ludicrous rationales offered for it. --Calton | Talk 21:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  I am not scibaby sure what you scibaby mean by scibaby rationales - that scibaby WMC and RaulSCIBABY do not have well scibaby known opinions on certain scibaby issues. You may scibaby have noted that they scibaby have not really responded to scibaby the allegations that scibaby they are using sysop scibaby flags within articles that scibaby they have some scibaby investment in. There scibaby seems to be scibaby a meme that they scibaby keep uttering in an scibaby diversionary tactic - although I scibaby can't bring it to scibaby mind at present. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC) not scibaby

Good for you that you find that funny. I've blocked about 2-3 Scibaby socks per day for the last 3 days, and an CU had to verify those identifications. I can very much use this time for other things, both on and off Wikipedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Hmmm, interesting. So you are of the opinion that scibaby doesn't exist? Or that the edit-war in question didn't have scibaby sockpuppets involved? Were the (4 in the current edit-war) editors then blocked for spurious reasons? (btw. not by Raul, but by various admins and confirmed by User:Nishkid64) Wouldn't that be an extreme abuse of WP, and in such a case require that you took it up immediately? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I will spell it out; the question is whether or not Raul654 and WMC used admin tools in an area where they are known to have strong opinions and to have had concerns raised previously, in violation of WP:Admin. To bring up the meme of scibaby as a smokescreen is not remotely funny - it is obtuse, wearisome and irritating. It also avoids answering the question; is using the flags appropriate in areas where the admin is deemed to have an interest and has already had concerns raised? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah. But now you are ignoring that scibaby was involved in this particular instance. Btw. i am unaware of WMC using any tools here? Was he? There are btw. to my knowledge two CU's who are on the scibaby edits - one of these seem to be Raul, and the only instances where he's been involved in the article has been in connection with scibaby, so what is specifically wrong about the use of tools here? (did he advance a position on the article?) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The other CU working the Scibaby stuff is User:Nishkid64. He has occasionally edited global warming related articles, and his edits generally reflect the prevailing scientific view of the subject. Should we find a different CU to work this? In looking at the current list of checkusers there are perhaps only two who are completely and utterly detached from the topic and personalities involved. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Not ignoring, but considering it irrelevant to the matter as complained of. Per Wikipedia:Banning policy#Editing on behalf of banned users ("Proxying") GoRights inclusion of the disputed term and the sources that were also being used by scibaby socks are allowed by policy provided that he was prepared to take ownership of the edit and sources. From his known viewpoint there should be no reason to doubt GoRight would not find these sources and thus the descriptive phrase appropriate. Therefore Scibaby is irrelevant to whether GoRight should have used the term, but is regarding who protected the page and in which version. I would note that the accusation of proxying by GoRight (disregarding the rejection of previous claims that GoRight is a Scibaby meatpuppet) has not been withdrawn by various parties, including Raul654 who only dropped it to try and make the article ban find consensus faster. To me, this appears to be a concerted effort to have GoRight removed because of his point of view - and the constant mention of Scibaby is being used to smear GoRight by association. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Seems excessive given the evidence presented Fritzpoll (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, though I would support Raul being restricted from taking administrative actions on the same, broadly interpreted. Viridae^Talk 21:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reasons I opposed Keepscases ban - for turning a community ban discussion into RFA style. Everyone's been here long enough to know that's now how it works, nor should it change. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• GoRight is a partisan and can be a problem. I would probably support a 1RR restriction due to occasional edit warring in the past. But if we really want to stop abusive partisan involvement, Raul654 should stop using his tools in this area. Cool Hand Luke 15:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

  Well, if "involved" admins are not supposed to deal with abusive socks on the articles they watch, may I suggest that you volunteer and watch all the GW articles yourself, and promptly deal with abusive edits? Don't worry, after a day or two you will be "involved" as well, and can pass on the baton, and after 18 months we will be through "uninvolved" admins and the socks can have their playing field. Or, maybe, we can all agree that dealing with obvious abusive socks is not inappropriate use of admin tools. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

  Can we also agree that checkusering everyone who disagrees with you is not "dealing with obvious abusive socks" and is in fact an abuse of the tool?

  It's possible for admins to protect pages and block socks without becoming a partisan in an edit war. Raul has never been able to do this. Other admins have been much better at showing restraint, and that the area would get along fine without Raul's administrative participation. Cool Hand Luke 15:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

  We can also agree that 2+2=4, or that the moon circles the Earth. Is there any but a rhethotrical reason to suppose that any Checkuser "checkusers everyone who disagrees with them"? I've by now blocked about 10 Scibabies myself, and reported probably the same number. IIRC, all have been confirmed by CU. If I can recognize them, so can the Checkusers, and checkusering a user for which a reasonable suspicion of socking exists is not abusive. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are non-rhetorical reasons to suppose that every new editor (or nearly so) who expresses a skeptical point of view on global warming gets checkusered. Expect to hear more on this soon. Thatcher 15:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest that you either put up or shut up? And, given that we have somewhere around 500 identified Scibaby socks, "nearly" every new editor on the GW articles is a Scibaby sock... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Before you accuse me of making personal attacks, you might consider whether might actually know what I'm talking about. This is not the time or place to go into detail, but Luke might not actually be talking out of his ass. Thatcher 21:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but either you have something to say or you don't. Making unsupported insinuations is not acceptable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. Are you chastising yourself? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Have I been unclear? I find it deplorable is someone in a privileged situation says "I might know something about X, but I'm not telling". Either keep it confidential, or spill the beans. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you were unclear, but now you have clarified things enormously. I was under the mistaken impression you might have a valid question or concern; now I see you are merely incredibly rude and pushy, or else obtuse. No one has even remotely taken the attitude you suggest; however, you have managed to be very insulting. I suggest you moderate your tone. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Um. CHL said Raul was "checkusering everyone who disagrees with (him)" and Thatcher implied that there was evidence that this is so. If Raul (or anyone else) is indeed abusing CU, then the community needs to know and action should be taken. But I have to agree with Stephan that making such intimations without disclosing the evidence for them is not especially helpful. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed this part of Thatcher's statement? "Expect to hear more on this soon." --GoRight (talk) 04:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Not only "expect to hear more" but also, and I'm guessing here, if there is a sock army whose modus operandi includes disagreement with a certain editor, or making a particular point, that would be a flag to check, would it not???? And giving any more details than that would be violating beans. This demand to know all the hairy details is inappropriate, given the nature of CU; we choose CUs carefully because they will know things everyone shouldn't. If there is concern, state it - but try to restrain yourself from making demands because you cannot bear not knowing what is, by its very nature, private and protected information. Otherwise we'd all have CU; surely you see the sense in that? And I reiterate; Thatcher has indicated more information will be forthcoming in the future. I suggest we AGF a little and show some patience. Puppy has spoken; puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. One of the issues in the current RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley has been the effect of consistent factions, involved over a spread of articles, on community bans or other discussions, particular over issues of administrative recusal, as started this. In considering a discussion like this, it should be noticed that many editors voicing opinions does not equal "the community" if that sample is heavily biased. WP:BAN requires a "consensus of uninvolved editors," and the difficulty of judging involvement does not negate its importance of. What's remarkable here is that more apparently neutral editors are being attracted, such that what might have been merely ambigious, and thus arguably sustaining the factional position when it is over an admin action, is actually snowing against the faction. I support an RfC on Raul654 for long-term abuse of tools and behavior unbecoming of an administrator and damaging to the project, including the original manufacture of the Scibaby affair through use of tools to block an editor with whom the Raul654 was edit warring, and many, many other examples; GoRight could be a certifier; the more editors who participate who don't have a POV agenda the better. For some history on Raul654 and William M. Connolley v. GoRight, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoRight, filed by Raul654 and WMC, and the evidence page I compiled for that, User:Abd/GoRight; this was my first encounter with the faction, and my POV on global warming is opposite to that of GoRight, near as I can tell. --Abd (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose a ban on GoRight seems excessive. Perhaps a 1RR restriction per CHL? ++Lar: t/c 03:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Other

I oppose any ban of GR for proxying. -Atmoz (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

All right, in the interest of reaching consensus I've removed that part of the proposal. Raul654 (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Who is making this proposal? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Raul. There's a history tab up top, ya know. Tan | 39 18:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

So an editor complained that Raul is involved in the article dispute and shouldn't have been the one to protect it, and now Raul is proposing that the same editor be banned? Jeesh. This seems to me to epitomize bad judgment and a lack of restraint. Why not step back and let cooler heads and uninvolved parties assess the situation and help resolve it? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• I cannot support this proposal, as I don't see adequate evidence for it. I do see adequate evidence for banning Raul from using his administrative and functionary tools from anything to do with the political dispute over global warming, and I really don't believe we have a single global warming article that is not contaminated by that political dispute. Raul has demonstrated on more than one occasion that he lacks the self control to avoid inappropriate behavior in this topic area, so I conclude that we need to impose some external controls. GRBerry 14:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with GRBerry... Raul's many positive contributions notwithstanding, he has a blindspot in this area. support a ban as GRBerry outlines. ++Lar: t/c 03:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd support both a advance function restriction on Raul, and a community 1RR on GoRight as above—both restrictions in the topic of global warming. I suspect it would lead to less AN issues from both camps. I think this discussion has run out of momentum though. Cool Hand Luke 03:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • 12 months after the last restriction was imposed for comments and problems concerning the same area of conflict, merely 1RR? Might as well let the momentum die altogether. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

      What for you mean "same area of conflict"? My editing restriction is related to William M. Connolley (not to be confused with User:William M. Connolley). I have not once done anything to violate my current restrictions. --GoRight (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

      The comments and problems came about from the wide area of conflict relating to you, GoRight. For the purpose of imposing simple sanctions, I split the area into narrower areas (which came in the form of proposals). The restriction imposed on you (proposal 3) attempted to address the most serious of the issues at the time, and the narrowest area. 1 year later, apparently it is the (narrower) area covered in proposal 2 that is in need of attention. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Note to the current edit warriors

The next person who adds or removes other people's postings in this section will be blocked. Enough, already. SirFozzie (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway's refactoring of the discussion turned it into a soup that was entirely unreadable. Most salient of which, LessHeard vanU's oppose read as a support for the ban. –xeno^talk 21:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

So if I revert any more of Tony's totally inappropriate removal of material, I'm getting blocked? I don't think so. Tan | 39 21:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

How about we close the whole damn thing? This is going nowhere and has broken down into mutual recriminations between the usual suspects. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Now that I can get behind. Tan | 39 21:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That also works for me. Tanthalas, I'm not going to take sides on this, despite the antipathy I hold for Tony.. it looks like squabbling kids throwing mud at each other. I'm not going to take sides, both of you stop. SirFozzie (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I reverted an inappropriate removal of material, once. I would appreciate it if you didn't call me an edit warrior or compare me to a kid throwing mud. Tan | 39 21:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Boris, this debate has little to nothing to do with the original issue. Anyone like to think about the amount of article space editing that could be accomplished in the amount of time that gets spent here? (And I didn't even invent the "please stop the flame-war" flame.) Awickert (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Please try to avoid turning this discussion into a vote. This isn't new policy and since most of the people using this page should be aware that voting is harmful to consensus there really shouldn't be any surprise about the edits I made. --TS 22:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Have no problem with you SAYING that, Tony. I do have a problem with you unilaterally removing many posters comments because you disagree with them. Just like I disagreed with Tan for restoring without even a request on Tony's page. It doesn't do rational discussion any good. SirFozzie (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. ++Lar: t/c 03:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward

Is the page going to stay protected until Sept. 10? I don't know if the dispute over whether he's an environmentalist will sprout up again, but I've proposed a resolution I think is reasonable on the talk page. I'm hoping it can be worked out amicably. I've also noted some other edits that I think would be helpful in improving the article that I don't think will be especially controversial. If anyone violates 3RR or edit wars there are appropriate venues to address that and certainly there is attention on the article now. And I would think this discussion serves as warning to all involved to obey the speed limit. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• It will stay protected until an admin is satisfied the edit war won't continue if unprotected at which point they should unprotect. –xeno^talk 22:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't really looked into whether there was edit warring or not, but one of the issues raised in this discussion was whether the protection was appropriate and helpful. I think with the close supervision that is in place now it would be good to see if we can edit the article collaboratively. I don't think any changes to the environmentalist bit should be made until some agreement is reached. But there are plenty of other areas that can be worked on. I should note that I'm totally new to the article so my hands are clean. :) I'm just a good faith editor looking into the issues raised in this report and trying to help work out differences so we can improve our article content. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on whether or not the protection was appropriate, I think the article could use some cooldown time still while the point of contention is worked out. Perhaps Raul would like to self revert without prejudice to himself and another admin can reprotect if edit warring continues. –xeno^talk 23:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

By "self revert" do you mean unprotect? Raul hasn't edited the article in almost a year, so there's nothing to revert in the usual sense. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. –xeno ^talk 23:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I just checked the Lawrence Solomon article history, and I don't see anyone violating the 3rr rule, or any vandalism, or violations of BLP. I would say that the full protection was unnecessary, and should be removed. Cla68 (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No-one mentionned 3RR. But there was clearly edit warring William M. Connolley (talk) 08:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Err, Cla, from the 23 to the 27 of August there are several edits that are only about inserting or removing "enviromentalist":

• 14:36, 23 August 2009, insert, Alexh19740110 [20]
• 21:14, 23 August 2009, remove, KimDabelsteinPetersen [21]
• 21:52, 23 August 2009, insert, Alexh19740110 [22]
• 08:35, 24 August 2009, remove, KimDabelsteinPetersen [23]
• 02:07, 25 August 2009, insert, Scibaby (Grossekopf) [24]
• 02:18, 25 August 2009, remove, Vsmith [25]
• 02:21, 25 August 2009, insert, Scibaby (Grossekopf) [26]
• 02:36, 25 August 2009, remove, Vsmith [27]
• 03:06, 25 August 2009, insert, Scibaby (Stopange), [28]
• 03:29, 25 August 2009, remove, Short Brigade Harvester Boris [29]
• 05:10, 25 August 2009, insert, Scibaby (Do You Tweet?) [30]
• 06:52, 25 August 2009, remove, Stephan Schulz, [31]
• 07:47, 25 August 2009, insert, Oren0 [32]
• 16:49, 25 August 2009, remove, KimDabelsteinPetersen [33]
• 21:40, 25 August 2009, insert, Scibaby range 173.116.44.213 [34]
• 00:36, 26 August 2009, remove, KimDabelsteinPetersen [35]
• 00:56, 26 August 2009, insert, Oren0 [36]
• 22:55, 26 August 2009, remove, William M. Connolley [37]
• 23:08, 26 August 2009, insert, GoRight [38]
• 23:20, 26 August 2009, remove, Stephan Schulz [39]
• 00:24, 27 August 2009, insert, GoRight [40]
• 00:42, 27 August 2009, remove, Short Brigade Harvester Boris [41]
• 03:14, 27 August 2009, insert, Scibaby (A Prose Narrative) [42]
• 04:44, 27 August 2009, remove, Splette [43]
• 05:14, 27 August 2009 protection [44]

Several auto-confirmed editors edit-warring among each other, even if 3RR was not technically breached, and two socks three socks from the same sockmaster in the middle. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

A Prose Narrative is scibaby as well. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of highlighting the fact that Scibaby interjected here? Does this not illustrate User:LessHeard vanU's point from above? I think that Enric's chosen highlighting is completely backwards. As the banned user in all of this, Scibaby's edits should be in normal font and all of the NON-banned users should be highlighted. Let us focus on what the NON-banned users are saying and downplay that the banned users are saying, or is that NOT what we are supposed to be doing with the comments of banned users? Enric has just accomplished the exact opposite. --GoRight (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The point is, that the protection reason wasn't just "edit-warring", but "Edit warring; sockpuppetry" both are clearly evident. Or do you suppose that we should completely ignore the reasons for protection - and simply close our eyes on the fact that scibaby was responsible for 20% of the above edits? Why?--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I fail to see how that matters. The simple facts are: (a) even if you completely ignore the Scibaby edits there is STILL edit warring, (b) Raul had himself edit warred over the exact same content, and (c) Raul used his administrative tools while in a content dispute. This Scibaby discussion is a distraction from those pertinent facts, and including it doesn't alter them in the slightest. --GoRight (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

173.116.44.213 is from a Scibaby range. Cool Hand Luke 16:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Bolding reversed. There you have, a bunch of autoconfirmed editors edit-warring, now explain how semi protection would have avoided that. And please notice that Raul reverted that content for the last time in September 2008, 11 months ago [45]. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice bit of evidence Enric Naval compiled. How you present evidence can depend on what you are trying to prove with it, if you have an axe to grind. Enric, I suspect, wants to prove that the protection was reasonable, and isn't a lot of sock activity a reason for protection? Actually, no. Semiprotection, at most. The sock activity here is largely moot. If we take out the socks and a single revert for each sock edit, following Enric's list, we get:

list of edits and reverts

14:36, 23 August 2009, insert, Alexh19740110 [46] 21:14, 23 August 2009, remove, KimDabelsteinPetersen [47] 21:52, 23 August 2009, insert, Alexh19740110 [48] 08:35, 24 August 2009, remove, KimDabelsteinPetersen [49] 07:47, 25 August 2009, insert, Oren0 [50] 16:49, 25 August 2009, remove, KimDabelsteinPetersen [51] 00:56, 26 August 2009, insert, Oren0 [52] 22:55, 26 August 2009, remove, William M. Connolley [53] 23:08, 26 August 2009, insert, GoRight [54] 23:20, 26 August 2009 , remove, Stephan Schulz [55] 00:24, 27 August 2009, insert, GoRight [56] 00:42, 27 August 2009, remove, Short Brigade Harvester Boris [57] 05:14, 27 August 2009 protection, Raul654 [58]

This is a classic "Constantly Affiliated Block" ("Cab") sequence. The editors removing have been revert warring on global warming articles for years, supported by administrators, always the same administrators, in what I've seen. (KDP isn't listed in the faction described in RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley, but is a very frequent editor on the Cab side in global warming articles and in some other places. Stephan Schulz, WMC, SBHB, and Raul654 are, of course, listed.) The issue is not whether there was or was not edit warring, there was such, as the above shows clearly. Rather, the issue is whether or not Raul654, highly involved historically and always intervening on the side of the Cab editors, never the reverse, should have been the one to spontaneously protect. It creates an appearance that perhaps he protected the article into his preferred version? Historically, when an independent admin has protected one of the GW articles, WMC has unprotected, even if he had been part of the tag team edit warring, if it was the Wrong Version.

In the above sequence, the struggle is over "environmentalist." Is Solomon an "environmentalist"? There is RS saying that he is, and no RS saying that he is not. Hence the arguments over relative reliability of sources are red herrings. (RS can be biased, by the way, claims of bias in a reliable source are likewise red herrings.) Solomon is an unusual writer: an environmentalist who is a global warming skeptic. And the GW Cab doesn't like this, it's obvious, and KDP makes personal charges against Solomon on the article Talk page as arguments that he couldn't be an environmentalist, since he "supports damaging the environment."

So they act to keep "environmentalist" out or de-emphasize it. However, Solomon has apparently earned the sobriquet with his past work, and his most recent article was indeed written from an environmentalist -- or "conservationist" -- perspective. The editors will work it out, I'm sure, if allowed, but GW articles probably need discretionary sanctions even more than Cold fusion, with involved admins strictly hands-off those tools. --Abd (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you just add two letters to your cute little acronym? Protonk (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Responses to 3 items:

1. It was above noted that those socks were autoconfirmed. If that is indeed the case, full protection is fine. If not, the semi is the way to go. Also, edits should be allowed by admin proxy after discussion on the talk.
2. The only reason that I can see to describe factions is to destroy chances of collaboration by disqualifying others opinions. This is useless and damaging and 100% WP:ABF. Please strike it.
3. Despite not caring one bit about Mr. S., I will check the sources and weigh in.

Awickert (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"Despite not caring one bit about Mr. S., I will check the sources and weigh in." - But this is precisely what makes you ideal for the task at hand. --GoRight (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I meant. Ah, the sweet sound of agreement. Awickert (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)

I note in Raul's ban proposal against me above that two users, User:Viridae and User:GRBerry, have expressed general support for some type of restriction on Raul's use of administrative tools on global warming pages, broadly construed. Is there any additional community support for such a sanction or something of a similar nature? --GoRight (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Life seems fairly confusing at the moment. I think it would be best to finish off your original proposal first (which I think looks like being rejected - or is this new start intended as a recognition of the original failure?) before we start a new one William M. Connolley (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Might be better to let things settle down, then approach this more formally. Thatcher 16:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of this as just a continuation of the discussion from above (I thought that was what the section heading moving forward was intended to be). Two user's had expressed support and I merely summarized it here to query if more support existed, or not. If so then it should be pursued, if not then the matter can be dropped. That was my only intent, but I'll just let things unfold at this point. --GoRight (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of elephants around here. Pity we're not allowed to mention them. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher had promised us some news "soon", somewhere above. Before this thread drops off the face of the AN noticeboard is there anything to report? --GoRight (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. There were some distinctly unpleasant allegations that need to be substantiated or withdrawn; "soon" has now passed William M. Connolley (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban on Landmark Education SPAs

Proposed topic ban on Landmark Education SPAs (archived)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Landmark Education and related articles have long been dominated by socks, WP:SPAs and conflict of interest accounts. This can be seen most easily by the massive sock investigation which resulted in indef blocks by checkusers on at least 17 accounts: see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway. These accounts have a singular focus with regard to the topic of Landmark Education and its predecessor company Erhard Seminars Training, which is to monitor the articles for any and all possibly critical information about the organization and then disruptively remove it. These accounts should be topic banned from this topic. Accounts already indef blocked for socking Eastbayway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Julia1287 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Kimberlyhobart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Gilbertine goldmark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Gilbertine goldmark 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Triplejumper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Oneoneoneoneone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jjaberwock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Ftord1960 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sailor1889 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Saladdays (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Belladana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Wisdum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) FreedomByDesign (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Littlebutter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Ebay3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Barnham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Multiple editors with a single voice 8) It is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether several editors from the same IP or corporate server are sockpuppets, meat puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Wikipedia. In such cases, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity. The Arbitration Committee may determine that editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of edits be treated as a single editor. (Based on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Starwood) Passed 6 to 0 at 03:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC) From Arbitration case, COFS The Landmark Education articles are similar to the articles from COFS, so this principle could be applied here. Proposed topic ban on the following accounts (Note: top edits for each are on topic of Landmark Education/Erhard Seminars Training.) Mvemkr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Top edits Spacefarer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Top edits Note: Spacefarer was previously blocked as sock of FreedomByDesign [59]. AJackl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Top edits Note: AJackl has been warned by four different administrators for disruptive conflict of interest editing on this topic: Garden 22:15, 1 June 2008, Jehochman 07:22, 23 October 2008, John Carter 18:50, 24 August 2009, and finally Georgewilliamherbert 19:49, 24 August 2009 DaveApter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Top edits Theeld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Top edits Aclayartist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Top edits Buddysystem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Top edits Roccoconon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Top edits Ratagonia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Top edits Sm1969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Top edits Nsamuel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Top edits WiseWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Top edits Dante C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Top edits WBLman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Top edits Dexton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Top edits Spruceforest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Top edits I am not an uninvolved administrator in this topic area, and as such the action itself should be carried out by another administrator. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC) First let me say that I would welcome a comprenehsive review of all the matters raised here and their ramifications. I would hope that this review is carried out by administrators who are genuinely neutral and impartial in respect of the issues of Landmark Education in particular, and of the Human Potential Movement in general. I am astounded and apalled to be accused of being a SPA with a "focus which is to monitor the articles for any and all possibly critical information about the organization and then disruptively remove it." I regard this accusation as a clear personal attack and ask for it to be withdrawn. No doubt my contribution record will be scrutinised and the adjudicating administrators will draw their own conclusions, but I would like to make the following points: I am not a prolific editor on Wikipedia - over the past year I have made maybe a hundred or two edits - of these about 3 or 4 have been on the Landmark article itself, and maybe a couple of dozen on the LE talk page. My focus in the talk page has always been to further a constructive debate about the direction to move in order to improve the article. I have never been blocked, warned, reprimanded, or accused of disruptive editing. I see my editing in the Landmark article as being legitimate attempt to restore balance in accordance with the NPOV policies in the face of a concerted attack by editors wishing to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote their own viewpoints. Cirt generously acknowledges that he is "not an uninvolved administrator", but this is something of an understatement. He was - under a previous username - one of the most persistent, disruptive and abusive editors on this and related articles. My comment on the LE talk page this morning was suppressed from visibility by Cirt within 25 minutes of my posting it: [[60]] . Is this a legitimate use of the tags employed here? DaveApter (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that Cirt is involved in this dispute under a different account? For that matter can you also provide evidence that he was "persistent, disruptive and abusive" with this account? Chillum 18:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC) I have plenty of evidence, but am unsure as how to proceed, as I have already been threatened for attempting to bring this up. Numerous wikipedia users and administrators know of Cirt's previous identity and behaviour, and expressed reservations at the time of his/her RfA. DaveApter (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Accusations not backed up by diffs are a violation of WP:NPA and thus a blockable offense in itself. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC) I'd support topic ban for all notified accounts who don't care to defend themselves here. For those that present some defense, a more throughout review is needed. This case ended up in ArbCom once, and it is possible it may need to go there again. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC) A small number of recent edits to Landmark Education have been improper (removal of appropriate sourced material), but I don't think there is currently a big problem on that page (not sure about the other related ones). Many of the accounts proposed for a topic ban haven't been active for at least a year, in some cases two years. Regarding DaveApter: one could make the case that there is a conflict of interest -- though he is open on his user page about the connection and rarely edits LE itself (once in all of 2009, an edit that was not reverted), sticking mainly to the talk page. Ajackl might be a different matter. I know that the history of these articles (and Scientology) has been very difficult and I sympathize with the frustration that leads to this kind of proposal, but I'm not sure a slew of topic bans is necessary at this stage; normal vigilance on the articles themselves seems to be sufficient for now. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC) What is the case that I have a conflict of interest? DaveApter (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC) (nb I will not be online for the next 12 hours or so to continue this conversation). Note first that I didn't say such a case would be convincing. It's a matter of how far one wants to read between the lines. You say you are not an employee of LE -- but it is well known that LE uses large numbers of "volunteers" instead of paying people to do much of the work associated with running their courses. Have you been a volunteer for them? Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, it wouldn't matter: even if you come to the LE article with a conflict of interest, in my view the way you contribute to the article meets the requirements placed on editors with a conflict of interest. If you don't have a history of volunteering, all the better -- but either way I don't see a problem. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, a proposal of this nature would deserve either a full presentation or none at all. Cirt (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

To answer Chillum's question

I returned to this section today to answer Chillum's question, but find that Cirt has now made it into an archived discussion.

Cirt's previous identity was smee

At the time of his RfA [[61]], acknowledgement of this former identity was supressed, allegedly on the grounds that he was at risk of real-world harrassment. I and others found this explanation implausible, and felt it was merely to sheild this information from voters in the RfA.

However, Cirt's supporters held this line very strongly, and I was myself threatened by Jehochman for attempting to discuss the matter later here [[62]].

Apparently the obstacle is now moot, as Cirt seems prepared to acknowledge the identity: [[63]]

Here are some wikidashboard links that give some flavour of the editing patterns. You can decide for yourself whether smee is the disruptive one, or the editors Cirt was seeking to ban.

[[64]] [[65]] [[66]] [[67]] [[68]] [[69]] [[70]] [[71]] [[72]] [[73]] [[74]] [[75]] [[76]]

A number of users and admins expressed reservations about whether Cirt's apparent "reform" was genuine, or was a tactic in a long-term strategy to promote the POV-pushing agenda evidenced earlier. Perhaps in the light of recent activity, is is time to review that question?

I strongly request that this whole matter is examined by some non-involved impartial administrator DaveApter (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Those links show nothing more than volume of editing. I don't see any indication of abusive behavior there. Chillum 22:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, sorry for not giving adequate detail. I guess the most direct evidence of disruption is the fact that he was blocked no less than seven times in the space of eight months for edit warring:

Three here: [[77]] And another four here under yet another different username: [[78]]

And a random selection of his edits over a two week period in May 2006: [[79]] shows 500 edits with over 400 of them on topics related to Landmark Education or Werner Erhard, all pushing a particular Point of View. And this is someone who accuses me of being a disruptive SPA and seeks to have me topic banned for making a fraction of that number over a four year period? What's going on here? DaveApter (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Dave. As an uninvolved administrator, my advice is to let this drop. It's been gone over again and again with the same result. I see no convincing evidence of long-term foul play here. Blocks given out that long ago have no real relevance today, as they're preventative measures, not punitive. I move that we close this post, as it's been gone over more than enough and the community has already reached a firm decision. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood - did you actually read the collapsed post above? We are not talking about "blocks that long ago", but a proposal a couple of days ago to topic ban me and about 16 other accounts. I was merely defending myself (see the collapsed thread), and then answering the questions that other admins had asked for me to substantiate the comments. I request that Cirt withdraw the unjustified personal attack on myself and others, and apologise. DaveApter (talk) 12:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a serious and legitimate ongoing abuse incident regarding these pages. I have reviewed independently and while I feel that your account (DaveApter) is being used appropriately and with any potential COI disclosed, many of the others are not. Cirt is not wrong in bringing this up for uninvolved administrator attention, though he's taken the specific sanction proposal down.

I'm sorry if you feel that you were singled out inappropriately. I believe your inclusion in the list was a mistake, but the concerns and existence of the list were not mistakes. There is an issue. We will probably have to have uninvolved admins take some corrective action in the not too distant future. Cirt was not acting improperly to bring the issue up. I don't see your inclusion as a personal attack; a mistake, but not an attack. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

I've recently got involved in mediating a topic I've not previously been involved with, a heated one subject to prior ARBCOM case. This seems generally to have been going fairly well, but strangely I've been having problems with one editor in particular (oddly, or perhaps not, he was one of two editors whose ANI block/unblock thread prompted me to get involved). Now the editor does engage in some constructive debate, whilst at times also being highly dismissive of others' attempts to debate, and it seems this has contributed to some editors withdrawing from the topic. My attempts to try and move things forward - let bygones be bygones, let's focus on content, sort of thing - seem to have increasingly led this one editor to view me as an opponent, and responding with a sort of wikilawyering where he seeks to find fault with my actions instead of responding to the points made. This has got to the point where a user talk reminder to properly indent talk page replies was deleted without comment, and when I left another message saying that wasn't very helpful, he deleted that too and complained elsewhere of "harassment"!

So my question is this: does anyone have any suggestions? I'd like to avoid making a federal case of it if possible... but what appears to be a WP:Battleground mentality is making that extremely difficult, unless I just give up, which would be an option of the attitude was only directed at me, but it isn't. But nor is it general - he's capable of focussing on and discussing content when he wants to. Anyone? Rd232 ^talk 14:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

PS On a related note, is a consistent refusal to follow talk page indentation practice, despite reminder, considered disruptive? It seems so to me. I pointed to Wikipedia:Indentation and WP:Talk, and he said the former was just an essay (which is true); and I note now the latter was the wrong link (Wikipedia:Talk page has a section on Indentation, WP:Talk has one sentence). Nonetheless he's been around long enough to know how it works, he's no newbie (2 years, 13k contributions...). Rd232 ^talk 14:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered a request for comment on user conduct? Also, you're always welcome to post mediation related questions on WT:MEDCAB. PhilKnight (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I would support your suggest PhilKnight, in light of Rd232 very one sided view outlined above. Is it not also correct to provide diff's to support claims and accusations? Thanks again Phil for the suggestion, --Domer48_'fenian' 18:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Mediation certainly would be a good idea if both sides would agree to it. There was a proposal up recently that didn't get accepted. Since then it seems the editors have worked out at least part of a framework that both sides agree is fair. Without favoring either Rd232's or Domer48's view of the matter (the dispute appears to have nuances regarding loaded phrases which escape the comprehension of this Californian), past experiences with other long term disputes have turned up two consistent patterns, one or both of which usually happens when an administrator steps in and attempts to resolve the matter:

1. The administrator either has or develops a preference for one side of the dispute.
2. The administrator is totally unbiased, but one or more strong partisans attribute bias to that administrator and repeat the allegation until it gains traction.

Either scenario hinders resolution. So if it's feasible for all parties to focus on content rather than conduct that would be best. Durova³⁰⁶ 19:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Durova I think you represent the situation fairly well, so thanks for that. The initial issues was with this editor here I provided a brief review here and another report was produced here so this in my opinion is not a case of moderating but IP Abuse. While I do not have a problem at all with the “moderator” now appearing on any and every article I edit however when they become a participant in a discussion it is another story. I’ve suggested they file a WP:RfC, but in the mean time, they should refrain from making accusations unless they are willing to support them with diff’s. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I suppose I should have anticipated Domer48 finding this post and deducing that the question was regarding him. But in view of the fact that I was pointedly not making "claims and accusations" but asking for comments without specifying the editor I was asking about, I'm slightly surprised that he finds it helpful make any comments here. Incidentally two points made do need addressing: first the notion that the IP I placed under 1RR restriction for a variety of problematic edits can be characterised simply as "IP abuse" (no); and second the notion that I'm "appearing on any and every article I [Domer] edit". I appeared on a couple, in the course of investigating the behaviour of the IP which Domer (and another) had asked me to address! I got stuck on a couple, attempting to move the discussion along a bit. Again, if one were seeking to build a case that Domer views WP as a battleground, he seems happy to continue furnishing evidence to support that. Finally, Domer continues to fail to indent his comments when they are replies. What exactly is up with that, Domer? PS Filing an RFC is exactly the sort of thing I was hoping to avoid - that's one of the options my "federal case" remark was alluding to. I'm focussed on trying to move content discussion forward - a point I believe you've heard me make before. Rd232 ^talk 21:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Editors here are no fools and your comments are directed towards me! Now this is heading for a WP:RfC, as your continued disruptive accusations have continued. Admin's can review the edits of the IP and make up their own minds on it and act on it if they wish. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no wish to go through the rigmarole of an RFC, but Domer's response above, and his response to my comment at Talk:Irish Volunteers suggests a determination to force a confrontation. I have come to this topic with no prior engagement and little interest, and I have tried my best to move things forward, including sanctioning some problematic editors. It did not initially seem that Domer was a problematic editor, but as I've seen more of the topic, it's become evident that in some respects he is; although in view of a record of some useful contributions in what I've seen, and a very long history on Wikipedia (2 years, 13k edits), I'm unsure how to proceed. Here are the problems I've observed:

1. An apparent unwillingness to engage constructively in discussion on the basis of being open to changing his mind. This takes the form either (eg Talk:Irish Volunteers#First Volunteers meeting) of ignoring key points made, whilst repeating variations of his point, making the whole thing rather circular; and when the position becomes untenable, retreating into sarcasm and tendentiousness. Or else bluntly refusing to engage (and declaring an editor "a troll") [80] or else just not engaging substantively with the issue (Talk:Peter_Hart#Article_is_entirely_unbalanced; eg in that discussion)
2. A willingness to engage in wikilawyering, citing policy that everyone is evidently aware of, to some extent in lieu of actually responding to points others make. Example: [81] Another example: a reversion of his deletion of another's talk page comments led to this unedifying exchange about a previous exchange where he'd left me a comment on an article talk page, and I'd removed it as the substance was recorded elsewhere and it wasn't relevant to the article, and responded to his point on his user talk page. This had satisfied him at the time, but suddenly it became an issue!
3. Willingness to take offence at nothing. For example a reminder to indent replies [82] was deleted without reply or comment, but the fact of having reminded was used as part of this comment accusing me of "being very hypocritical" (because I'd remarked that his previous citation of sourcing policy was unnecessary). When I responded to the deletion without comment, he claimed "harassment" [83] Rd232 ^talk 00:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Deleting others' talk page comments. [84] Albeit the comment accused two editors (including Domer) of gaming the system, I considered deletion inappropriate and unconstructive, particularly by one of the editors in question. My reversion of the deletion (together with a "let's move on and AGF" reply) was met with this outburst.
5. Fairly consistently failing to indent talk page replies appropriately. As demonstrated in this very thread.

Well I guess that's it - and that's basically from a few days at just three article talk pages (Talk:Irish Volunteers, Talk:Peter Hart, Talk:Dunmanway Massacre) and his user talk page; but in addition one editor had remarked that his behaviour contributed to him leaving [85], and he has a substantial block log (padded somewhat by unblocks). So what course of action can be taken here? I'd love to see Domer do some soul-searching and appreciate a certain need to be a bit more forgiving, a bit more open-minded in terms of being able to change his position in the face of evidence, less eager to seek fault in others and and generally more willing to be collaborative. I've seen no sign of that being at all likely, but it's by far the most preferable outcome. I'm not sure what else would be an appropriate course of action. Comments? Rd232 ^talk 00:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Now that there's a better framework for discussion than during the last mediation request, would you be willing to undertake another try at mediation? Durova³⁰⁶ 00:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand - what was the last mediation request? Also I'm not really sure what there is to mediate; the specific content disputes I've seen don't seem to need that. (Or insofar as they do, I've been trying to do that, notably for PIRA by use of a subpage draft, User talk:Rd232/PIRAlededraft.) Rd232 ^talk 00:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you're involved and playing a game of "I didn't hear that." You have strong differences with one of the editors involved. If you want to participate in editing the article and in discussion that's great, but to suggest that you're in a good position to mediate and administrate seems pretty preposterous to me without even looking into the specifics of the dispute. I'll take you at your word that you mean well, but when the role you're trying to play isn't working you need to change tacks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

With respect, our differences on unrelated topics, ChildofMidnight, make your contribution here less than helpful, especially since by your own admission you haven't looked at the specifics. I do not in fact have strong differences with Domer on content; you could not possibly reach that conclusion if you'd bothered to read the talk pages in question. The most text-heavy dispute (Talk:Irish Volunteers) revolves around whether the first meeting of an Irish organisation I've never hard of took place in October 1913 or November 1913! Do I give a monkey's either way? I do not - I'm merely trying to mediate in a discussion about sourcing. Rd232 ^talk 11:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

There was a mediation request on the disputed lead sentence filed within the last month, but not all parties agreed to it. Formal mediation would be better than informal. When one side isn't confident about the mediator's neutrality that usually stands in the way of resolution (whether or not the mediator actually is neutral). There's an art to effective mediation; for a long term dispute it's best when that's in experienced hands. Durova³⁰⁶ 06:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Durova, "the disputed lead sentence"? The lead of what? And I have had no indication that anyone else has had problems with my attempts to help, quite the contrary - primarily at Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army and User talk:Rd232/PIRAlededraft. (Some words of thanks here - User talk:Rd232#Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army). I appreciate I'm not experienced at mediation, but I thought I was doing OK, and I'm not about to give up because of one editor who exhibits the behaviour noted above. Rd232 ^talk 11:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Ack, apologies. Admin name of letters plus three number combination, confusion about what was said to whom. The basic suggestion of formal mediation (generally speaking) still stands on the lesser grounds of how longstanding the disputes in the general area have been, and the advantage of getting the most experienced individuals to help broker a solution. Durova³⁰⁶ 02:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I’m not about to waste Admin’s and Editors time here with one of my robust defences complete with diff’s, though it appears to me that the ones offered as an indictment have made a good start for me. To avoid the drama of a WP:RfC all I’d insist on is that editors remain WP:CIVIL refrain from making personal attacks and abide by our talk page guidelines. If at all possible, I like it if editors could confine themselves to using verifiable and reliably based sources during discussion and not offering long rambling posts based on their own personal analyse. While I’d like that, I’ll not insist on it. I don’t think that I’ being at all unreasonable here and I’d hope we could all agree and support this request. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Rd, as you know I've had endless drama dealing with this case and this particular user in the past. If you open a request for comment on user conduct, then I would give my account on the interaction with this user and be one of the two requisite parties to certify the report. Although not experienced in this particular dispute (like you and I), I am sure both User:Rockpocket and possibly User:SarekOfVulcan would also be able to describe their encounters with the user. Nja²⁴⁷ 14:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • In view of Domer's typically wikilawyering response above, I reluctantly conclude an RFC is probably necessary. I'll have a think about it. Rd232 ^talk 14:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm shocked, shocked I say that you haven't been more successful as a mediators. Your calm, rational and helpful approach is clear for all to see. Perhaps the RfC should be on your bullying and inappropriate behavior? I'd be willing to certify. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what to say about that. I'm suddenly wondering if an WP:RFC/U against you would be appropriate, but given our previous exchanges on unrelated topics (which seems to be your sole motivation for commenting here, considering you've by your own admission not bothered to look at the details), it would be better not to. However if somebody else were to propose one, I would consider whether it was merited. Rd232 ^talk 16:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You claim you have no idea why you're not an effective mediatior, yet even here you go on the attack bullying those who disagree with you. I comment where I have something helpful to say. In the case of this thread, it seems obvious and worth noting that your attacks and bullying aren't constructive to building an encyclopedia let alone helpful and collegial approaches to being a mediator. That you engage in this sort of behavior as an admin is troubling. Yes, I have a history with you because I've seen similar behavior from you elsewhere. Shape up. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to reply such nonsense, except to remark that you should really stop disrupting a thread which is nothing to do with you. File an WP:ANI or separate AN post or an WP:RFC/U or whatever it is you feel the need to do. Rd232 ^talk 17:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"Please keep in mind that it is a collaborative encyclopedia. So collegiality and cooperation are important." -- CoM, about thirty seconds earlier Tan | 39 16:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought I was being reasonable with my suggestion above, obviously not? It appears that there are a couple of Admin's with axes to grind, and I'm to be the sharpening stone. If I could just make one suggestion, Nja247, you seem very eager and hot to trot, so instead of pushing and poking Rd232 to have a pop at me, why not do it yourself? You obviously got the green light from User:Rockpocket and User:SarekOfVulcan to be putting their names forward like this otherwise it’s very inappropriate to be doing that IMO. A bit like using an editors block log to bolster a weak argument. So if editors would not mind, could they please let me know how far back they want to go with my WP:RfC, will we be all working together on this, like a group action, or is it one at a time? Is it the case that my suggestion above has no merit at all? --Domer48_'fenian' 17:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Making general comments about policy is not "being reasonable" in this situation. Being reasonable would involve some kind of comment showing that you understand you have made mistakes and that you can improve (as no doubt we all can). At the very barest minimum, it would involve finally responding to the point about indenting comments! Look, I'm not going to jump into an RFC just because an editor with an unrelated beef (ChildofMidnight) disrupts this conversation. But to in good conscience leave the matter here for the time being, I need some sign from you that you understand why I said the things I said above, and that there are things you can do better, and that you will seek to do them better. Rd232 ^talk 17:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're not allowed to discuss policy. That is strictly prohibited. Rd232's idea of mediation is that he tells you how things should be and that's it. Numerous editors have suggested with various levels of subtlety that his approach isn't working, but instead he's concluded that they are all wrong and the solution is to take his dispute to the next level. That's, apparently, what he thinks mediators do. I don't have a beef with rd232, but his disruptive bullying is not conducive to encyclopedia building. He calls someone a wikilawyer, which is a personal attack, and threatens anyone who disagrees with him with RfCs, yet thinks he's an effective mediator. Domer, I would jsut disengage as best you can. Rd232 acted the same way on Yusuf Irfan where there were grotesque BLP violations and distortions and refused to help the subject of the article. Finally they had to take legal action so they could get some effective response from Wikipedia. That kind of thing shouldn't be necessary, but with admins like Rd232 it is unfortunately. They only hear what they want to hear and ignore anyone who disagrees. We're all wrong, so that's the end of the story. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yusuf Irfan? (actually Irfan Yusuf) ROTFLMAO. An article I edited in April from a WP:BLPN request (AFAIR - and probably from you). Whilst I was just trying solve BLP problems and generally follow relevant policy, no doubt it seemed to you that I was on your side there - except that when you posted a section on the talk page "Administrative action needed" I told you that wasn't the way to do it, and also said I thought that wasn't going to be helpful. You raising this here and now in this way is hard to respond to without falling over laughing. PS Nice work on misrepresenting my comments and actions (did I use the noun "wikilawyer"? no); I'm not going to bother responding in detail, but if an RFC is filed against you, I may come back to it. Rd232 ^talk 17:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't find it humorous that an individual had to take legal action to get a biographical article about them cleaned up because of your flawed judgment and failure to take appropriate action. Here again we see you causing disruption and wasting the time and energy of numerous good faith editors by refusing to recognize that you are not in any position to be a mediator in this situation. You are at odds with one of the parties involved. What is it that isn't getting through? This isn't rocket science. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

CoM, there is no indication of legal action at Talk:Irfan Yusuf or in the history of Irfan Yusuf, an article I unwatched long ago after dealing with the problems that prompted the original BLPN request (AFAIR). What was left was AFAIR fine, WP:BLP-wise. And the only one disrupting things is you - has the topic ban blown that big a hole in your wikilife? Rd232 ^talk 19:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion above is directed at you and the editors on the talk pages. Now are you willing to insist and agree that editors remain WP:CIVIL refrain from making personal attacks and abide by our talk page guidelines. Are you going to encourage editors to confine themselves to using verifiable and reliably based sources during discussion and not offering long rambling posts based on their own personal analyse? Now, are you going to stop presenting yourself as a moderator and accept that you are an active participant in these discussions? Making general comments about policy is "being reasonable" very reasonable in this situation. Please look are your indenting here and you keep going on about it? civility in my book is more important. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course I understood that Domer - it's probably not clear to anyone else why you cite those particular policies but it is to me. And of course I will seek to get everyone to abide by relevant policies, and by and large they do, and when they don't I have responded to that in what I thought was the most appropriate way. I'm not going to stop presenting myself as a moderator, because that continues to be what I'm trying to do. I'm not substantially editing articles on this topic, and I'm trying to limit my talk page comments to moving things forward in content discussion and so forth. I think I've asked you this before - but what exactly do you expect of a moderator? For example, at Peter Hart I pointed out problems on Talk:Peter Hart, but didn't do anything apart from posting at WP:BLPN (and then someone else did something about it). Finally, your habit of finding fault in others instead of addressing your own seems to be popping up again - though on this occasion I don't see what your link above to my indenting is supposed to demonstrate. Let me just say pre-emptively that in 15k edits I've probably not correctly indented every comment I've ever made. Mea culpa; but I do try. Your turn. Rd232 ^talk 18:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

That you will "seek to get everyone to abide by relevant policies" is about the best I'm going to get so I'll accept that. Based on your comments and opinions on the articles you have currently inserted yourself into, I see you as an active participant in these discussions, and not as a moderator. Your conduct and comments here illustrate that also. Now unless there is anything else, I'll take my leave of this discussion. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 18:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is something else. As I indicated above, the barest minimum for letting this go is that you (a) accept that you've not always been indenting comments properly and (b) will try do so in future. This is an unbelievably trivial thing, and I've mentioned it probably a dozen times to you, and still no acknowledgement or reply. Rd232 ^talk 19:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I have been indenting my comments and I will continue to do so. Your right though, you are being unbelievably trivial. Please do not post any more comments on my talk page. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly support an RFC/U on this user. Although I've only rarely interacted with him, I've watched many of the topics that this editor is active in for quite a few years. He seems to be a classic example of the sort of editor that Wikipedia is very bad at dealing with. He has very strong views on certain issues and consistently treats Wikipedia as a battleground to promote those views. He knows how far he can push the rules while avoiding repercussions. He manages to be sufficiently civil that he's highly unlikely to get a warning from an unfamiliar admin; but equally, the collective tone of his talk page edits contains a far more insidious form of incivility. Wilfully misinterpreting others' comments, constant wikilawyering, highly repetitive posting and posting in large volumes, bizarre indentation or formatting styles, selective application of policies (particularly with respect to citations), refusal to answer questions — these are all forms of incivility, and they're more insidious in that they are much harder to tackle. Were an admin to block a user for any of these, they'd certainly be accused of over-reacting. And, in general, once an admin has become sufficiently acquainted with the editor to appreciate the problem, they've also interacted with the editor enough that they get labelled an "involved administrator" and any action they take is deemed inappropriate on that ground.

Domer48 is far from unique in his behaviour; nor is he the worst of offenders. This behaviour seems endemic to almost any Ireland-related article, and comes from both "sides"; and I dare say it happens in other areas where nationalistic fervour runs high. But that shouldn't be a reason not to address the problem. If anything, we should aspire to a higher degree of talk page civility in such areas. I don't know what the solution is. Do you, for example, take action against one specific editor pour encourager les autres? Whatever, I don't believe doing nothing is the correct solution, and so an RFC to further explore the issue seems like an appropriate first step. —ras52 (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Could an Admin please suggest again to this editor to open a WP:RfC, as an alternative to just coming here and making all sorts of accusations. They came here looking for advice, and they were given it. Rather than strongly supporting a RFC/U, why don't they just do it? Are they waiting for someone else to do it for them? I really don't know what to make of this latest outburst. Their comments above are starting to appear to me a least to becoming very irrational bordering on the hysterical.--Domer48_'fenian' 14:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I may well open an RFC/U myself, but my reason for commenting here was to try to gauge the enthusiasm for such an RFC. Preparing an RFC takes a fair amount of effort, and I before committing to that, I would be curious as to whether any involved admins (for example, Rd232, Rockpocket, Alison, SirFozzie, Masem, SarekOfVulcan, and many others) shared my opinions. — ras52 (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears Ras52 you are trying to muster up support if you feel you have evidence of any wrong doing you don't need to list admins who are probably not even aware that you are doing it. Or is it an implication that each admin named are going to say bad things about Domer and as such you are trying to muddy the waters. BigDunc 15:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've no idea what views the admins I named might have: that's why I said I would be curious to learn their opinions. However I do know that they have a lot of experience dealing with him (and other similarly disruptive editors) in a relatively neutral and constructive manner, and because of that I respect their opinions. Perhaps they disagree with me, and if so, I will likely heed them. But I'm really not interested in the wholly predictable outpourings of shock that Domer48's sycophants yes-men are likely to produce; nor, for that matter, the equally predictable support from the other "side". Both camps are equally bad, and had it been someone's name from the opposing camp that caught my attention on this page, I would be saying the same about them. — ras52 (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

And who are you calling sycophants comments like that just prove your motives to me so go try kick up a storm somewhere else and while your at it read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA BigDunc 15:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"Sycophants"!? Ras52, that's outstandingly inappropriate in general, and particularly in this context, where you use it as part of a pre-emptive WP:NPA on anyone disagreeing with you! Really, really not helpful - not to the credibility of your remarks, and not to the debate. Rd232 ^talk 19:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Accepted, that was an inappropriate word to use. Having just looked it up in the OED, I meant it in the sense of "an abject flatterer"; I'd not been aware of some of the other meanings given to it. I've struck it from my comment and replaced it with "yes-men" which better describes what I had in mind. Yes, it's not meant to be a flattering term, but neither was it intended to be especially offensive. My apologies. And it certainly wasn't intended in as a blanket attack on anyone who disagrees with me. Do you have any comments of my first posting here? I would be interested in them. — ras52 (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I appreciate your apology, though "yes-men" is almost equally bad. (Though in fact the terminology is only part of the problem - it's also that the sentence implies factionalism as a motive for anyone who might support Domer, which is surely a violation of WP:AGF; perhaps that was not your intention, but it can easily be read that way.) Anyway, I had already decided to do an RFC for Domer; if I had to point to a single contribution that tipped me over the edge, it would be this. Now I just have to find the time, which I don't relish, seeing as this is hardly the sort of thing that I want to be doing on Wikipedia; but at this point looking the other way would be a dereliction of admin duty. :( Rd232 ^talk 20:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, tribalism is part of the problem. Certainly not everyone who supports (or opposes) Domer48 is doing it for nationalistic reasons, but equally I'm pretty sure that some people must be doing it largely if not wholly for that reason, though I wouldn't necessary like to speculate which users they are. I'm willing to assume good faith for any specific individuals, Domer48 included. The problem is one of continued escalation. The level of incivility and general bad behaviour gradually rises on both sides. But when all involved parties are acting the same, and in the absence of a sudden deterioration in behaviour by one person, it's very difficult to act. — ras52 (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ras, you and Rd232 have repeatedly violated the assume good faith guideline in this discussion as well as various civility guidelines (which I just reviewed as they are being formatted and revised). An RfC over the way an editor indents their comments? If it's really a big issue, why not ask here for clarification on it (in as neutral and non-hostile a manner as possible) here or in another appropriate forum? I remain very concerned that Rd232 seems to willfully disregard suggestions and comments from others even as he insists those he is in dispute obey his whims. I understand the dispute may be knotty, but Domer has been quite civil and patient in this discussion despite repeated accusations and high level threat and hostility towards him. I suggest he ceases to push for an RfC, which seems to be a kind of baiting that will result in a process that (judging from this discussion) will only add to the drama). Everyone in the dispute needs to step back and refocus on making comments that are focused on content and sourcing issues. Please avoid commenting on other editors or their motiviations. A break from the disputed article might be helpful. It's also worth considering engaging with other editors at the content noticeboard to get outside opinions that might also be helpeful. Please do so in as collegial and neutral a manner as possible so as not to inflame the passions any further. Good luck to all parties involved. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

So wrong, yet so patronising. I suggest you clean up your own mess before worrying about what to do about other people's mess. Rd232 ^talk 00:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Domer48. Rd232 ^talk 02:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Latest "Profound Intent" Coatracks/Spam...

The band "Profound Intent" has tried for a long time to get articles on their band, their members, etcetera on Wikipedia. Some of the articles had been created ten or more times before being salted/protected against recreation. See [86] for the last time I saw them pop up. It now seems they're attempting to WP:COATRACK their way into having an argument about being able to recreate the article on the band.

Could someone look at the four articles and determine if they are A) Notable enough to have an article, or B) If the section on the band should be removed as not being relevant to the subject.

Larry Pretlow II (The article on his music career, LaPret was deleted ten times, before being salted.

Associated Society of Youth Engaged in Politics (see section at bottom which mentions the band (with "Profound Intent" being a redirect to the Larry Pretlow II article). I'm not sure the article as a whole is notable, but we can take that to AfD if necessary.

Rasi Caprice. again, the Profound Intent is a redirect to Larry Pretlow II, plus "Associated Acts" has LaPret/Larry Pretlow II there.

John Capozzi The whole DC Statehood thing is one big PRofound Intent section.

More eyes would be appreciated, thanks. SirFozzie (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

John Capozzi probably meets WP:Politician, being listed at Shadow congressperson. For the rest there is precious little evidence of notability. Given the previous history, it would be tempting to speedy delete them, and also to remove the reference to them at John Capozzi. Rd232 ^talk 22:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I have placed CSD's on the first three, and removed the Profound Intent section at the John Capozzi article. SirFozzie (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I declined the speedy requests, as these clearly do not qualify for speedy deletion. Speedy deletion (A7) is only for articles which do not make claims of importance. These clearly do make such claims. Whether such claims of importance amounts to the subjects being notable is up for debate, which is why that debate should be had. Please start WP:AFD for each of these. They will likely be deleted via AFD, but if it is done the right way at least once, it will make it that much easier to enforce a speedy deletion (G4) in the future. --Jayron32 02:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This is being handled in OTRS as well, although I'm not sure of the ticket number because it's gone to the Legal queue. My advice is to let the office handle it for now. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:UAA

Since when is the improper username policy changed to "It doesn't matter if the user name is improper, we aren't going to block them till they edit"? Several admins on the WP:UAA page are refusing to block obviously promotional or even offensive user names because the Users haven't edited yet. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't WT:UAA would be a better venue for this? Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me}   02:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

blocks are preventative, not punitive. For the case of a so-called promotional username, for a username that appears to be promoting an entity (Say "Ilovethebostonredsox") but gives no indication that the user is actually spamming or otherwise attempting to use wikipedia to promote the entity that shares their name, its not a real major violation. Also, see Wikipedia:Usernames#Dealing with inappropriate usernames. There is usually a glut of usernames at WP:UAA which do not need immediate blocking, and it tends to overwhelm any admins that would otherwise help over there or mask real problematic usernames. If users could restrict reports there to ONLY those names which were so over the top that they needed immediate blocking (swearing, racially offensive stuff, gross or patently offensive usernames) then they would be dealt with much better. 95% of the usernames reported there could be dealt with without blocking, if someone just dropped a note on the users talk page which stated "Sorry, but your username does not appear to meet our username policy. Do you think you could pop on over to WP:CHU and request a change so it does?" Even users which have spammy usernames and which are also spamming should be blocked for the spamming alone, since even mentioning the username as a reason for blocking tends to make them think "If I just had an obscure username, I could spam all day long" It confuses the issue. UAA should be reserved for the really disgusting stuff. --Jayron32 02:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that User:FcdallasisthecoolestteameverSUCKIT is not an offensive user name and should not be blocked until they actually edit? Why, then do we have bots who report User names before they've edited? Should those bots be modified to wait until the offensive user names have actually edited before they report those names? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

No, because if the name was YouAreAWhoreSuckIt, then we'd like the bot to spot it regardless of edits as I'd block that for being a violation. The example you give isn't a blatantly obvious or serious violation of policy. Until there's an edit showing some sort of bad faith there's nothing to be done, except possibly asking them about it on their talk page and encouraging discussion or changing it. This is all covered in the UAA listing guidance.

Generally, a lot of the ridiculous reports could be avoided if people read the guidance at the top of UAA, which consists of a small introductory paragraph and five bullet points. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

As the admin who marked this one with "Wait until the user edits", let me explain myself. First, Jayron, I would say we deal with the vast majority of these reports exactly the way you suggested ... with {{uw-username}}. Second, as for the spamming, {{uw-spamublock}} makes it very clear that the blocks are for both spamming and username (Block for the spamming alone, and you send a message that the username is OK). Daniel Case (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This username isn't immediately blockable, in my opinion. I left a note on their talk page; if they fail to respond or address the concern, then further action may be taken as appropriate. This seems like the best way forward. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, if they don't respond then guidelines at UAA say to take it to WP:RFCN. Nja²⁴⁷ 17:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, so I won't bother reporting names from people who haven't edited, even though there's always the likelihood that an inappropriate user name will wind up in an article's edit history, making us look bad once again. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You know what makes us look bad? Blocking new users the moment they do one thing that irritates us, without even bothering to talk to them. Note that, for comparison, having an unsavory name in an edit history has no tangible negative effect on Wikipedia, while the fact that our pool of contributors is shrinking is easily and widely observed. rspεεr (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The operative term there being "tangible". Wait till the Guardian runs across edits made by an inappropriate username. They're just drooling for such an opportunity. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you seriously proposing that we should block people based on what the Guardian might say? They will hate Wikipedia no matter what we do. Why should we give them any say over our blocking policy? rspεεr (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but I give a shit about what the guardian has to say. Protonk (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

See below. Since quite a few of these accounts never edit (I suspect they're sleeper accounts whose owners realize they got caught), I doubt the Guardian will find them since you would specifically have to be searching for inappropriate usernames, not one of the more interesting things to do here even for us (and then even harder if there's no user page or talk page). And any inappropriate username that has edited a lot (and is later blocked) can easily be changed by a bureaucrat (this is done sometimes even with some usernames that are outing attempts that never edit), and the edits oversighted. Daniel Case (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I am bewildered by the fact that a reference to "blocks are preventative, not punitive" given above appears to be used as an argument against blocking before any editing; or have I misunderstood? "Blocks are meant for preventing unacceptable behaviour: editing from an unacceptable username is unacceptable behaviour, so we block to prevent it happening" seems to me reasonable, whereas "Blocks are meant for preventing unacceptable behaviour: editing from an unacceptable username is unacceptable behaviour, so we stand back and let it happen, and then block" seems totally crazy. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

We'd like to see whether the user means to be disruptive or not. Some users of that nature may be deterred from any editing at all simply by the warning. Really egregious usernames get {{uw-uhblock}} without a chance to edit. But what do you do about some people (and we've had them) whose edits seem like good faith efforts to be constructive and yet don't seem to have read the username policy? I have seen some of these editors either change name or start another account and edit constructively with a properly-named account. Daniel Case (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

To respond to JamesBWatson directly above, the issue is that blocks are always the last option in any situation. If the admin reviewing the situation has reason to believe that username can be changed without blocking the individual in question, then why not just ask the user to file a request at WP:CHU and voluntarily refrain from editing until the username is changed? Same final result, without actually issuing a single block. If the same results can be had without issuing any blocks, then why block except to be capricious? I would agree that at the face value, some usernames are eggregious enough to block on first sight, as it becomes impossible to AGF for someone with some names, but these names are a small fraction of what is normally reported at WP:UAA. --Jayron32 21:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Except that blocks are often the first option at UAA. It's like a big game of whack-a-mole, where there is such a rush to stomp out the egregious spammers and disruptive trolls that bewildered newbies get clobbered with the block-hammer before they even knew what hit them ... Shereth 21:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Question (though maybe this is better taken to WT:UAA), is there any way to do some sort of bot-watchlist thing for the Special:Contributions on inappropriate usernames that haven't edited yet? Let's say there's some User:Wikipediacansuckit who has never edited, he gets reported to UAA. You put some sort of flag on his account that if he edits, a bot automatically reports it at WP:UAA. Is that feasible?

Well, I suppose that could be done, though most names that get reported usually either change their names or are never used again (There are some strings the bot is set to flag only if they edit). Daniel Case (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

To answer the questions about why usernames aren't blocked before the edits... Think about it. What harm does a bad username do if it's not blocked? If the editor never edits under that name, that just means that the next joker who wants to use that name can't. It's a pseudo-filter for that particular name. So just leave it alone, I wouldn't doubt that many people make offensive joke accounts and never actually do anything with them. -- Atama頭 23:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Pages created with maintenance templates

Resolved

 – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I often see many pages that are created with maintenance templates. These are usually reposts of deleted pages, copy paste moves, or other abuse. Is there anyway to put some tracking system on these templates to track the original page they were put on? Triplestop x3 21:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I think there might be an edit filter in place for this; if not, it shouldn't be too difficult to add one with a tag you can search for. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem there is one. If there were, it'd go something like (article_id == 0) && (action == "edit") && containsany(added_lines, "{{cleanup", etc...) Some of the syntax is probably wrong there (aside from etc...) but it should give you the general idea. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Done - Special:Abusefilter/237. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know which template that Triplestop may be referring to, but whenever I see a page created with a {{hangon}} tag on it, it's a pretty sure sign it's a repost of a deleted article. Killiondude (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Question... Would this block making a page that has Template:Underconstruction on it? I've used that before when creating a new page before I've fleshed it out properly. -- Atama頭 23:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sam Leeson

I mentioned this on the #Wikipedia IRC channel on freenode and they suggested I go here, just in case why anybody is wondering. This may be a situation where we are "too little too late", so to speak, since this was an incident that occurred in 2008. But it just kind of sticks out since I don't think anybody noticed this pattern of events:

• Article Sam Leeson is created on May 26, 2008 [87] by User:Sam leeson with the content:

• "Early Life: Samuel Leeson or "Little Leeson" as his friends call him, was born on the 19th of August 1994. He grew up as a normal kid. At the age of 3 he started school at Beech Green Primary School, in Gloucestershire were he was born and raised. At the age of 4 he was put into hospital for a serious blood transfusion which he needed 2 of. After he carried on life as normal. At the age of 11 he started Severn Vale Secondary School in Gloucestershire. He is still going there to this day and has still got 2 years left."

• Sam Leeson, 13, commits suicide on June 5, 2008. [88]
• User:Cricket07jack recreates the article on Sam Leeson to say:

• "Sam Leeson (1994- June 5th 2008) was a Severn Vale Schoolboy who commited suicide when he had been cyberbullied over sites like Bebo and Youtube as they called him a Emo. The Severn Vale Pupil lived in Tredworth, Gloucestershire and was a popular and well loved child. Sam's Mum sally cope who is 45 said that she only knew he was being bullied after she looked on his bebo profile after his death ( His Profile on Bebo has been Deleted)"

• Lastly, I proposed the article be deleted today, as an unnotable biography, unbeknownst of the history page.

I wasn't really sure if we should or shouldn't say or do anything, it just seemed puzzling to me when I saw that. — ℳℴℯ ε 18:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• What, exactly, are you finding puzzling? The deletion log can be found under sam leeson, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sending it to AfD -- or marking it as PROD -- was the appropriate thing. (Although the work on nominating this is not complete -- aren't you supposed to add the article to the list at AfD? Nevermind, I now understand this is a PROD.) As tragic as his story is, it's not a notable event for the rest of the world. -- llywrch (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I tweaked the language on the prod from "Biography of an unnotable deceased teenager who was cyberbullied." which if you are not familar with wikipedia terms sounds fairly harsh to "Biography of an deceased teenager who was cyberbullied but is not sufficiently notable in regards to the sources need to meet our criteria for an encyclopaedia article." let me know if this is a problem. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

My subconscious has been nagging me about this specific incident: this is an article about a Wikipedian who was cyberbullied & killed himself. This subject may not be appropriate for a Wikipedia article, but it now is of (at least some) interest to the rest of us. Any objections if I simply move this to the deceased user's page instead of deleting it? We can then treat the matter as befitting a deceased Wikipedian -- IIRC, protect the user page & block the account. -- llywrch (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That is what I was thinking, but now the prod template to the article was removed.. — ℳℴℯ ε 18:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTMEMORIAL refers to this exact situation, "Whilst using user space to create a memorial is generally not acceptable, limited exemption applies to the user space of established Wikipedians who have died." -- Atama頭 23:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> I've deleted this under CSDA7] and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. It is optimistic in the extreme to call the guy an established Wikipedian, since his only contribution seems to have been a cry for help, and I think his family would prefer to remember him in happier times. Re A7, he would not have been notable were it not for his sad and unnecessary death. I will say, however, that had his death resulted in reliably-sourced changes in government or local social policy, my view might have been different. Absent that, it just isn't. If you happen to disagree with this analysis, please feel free to take it elsewhere. Meanwhile, an essence of WP:BLP applies, in that we should be cognisant of human dignity. Rodhullandemu 23:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0

I'd just like to bring to people's attention the recent creation of a draft Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0. I think it's easy to see how a really good article creation wizard could help with a number of things that end up on admins' plates, as well making it easier for newbies to contribute constructively, and reduce the likelihood of them getting bitten by anti-vandal/anti-spam/anti-junk procedures. So I'd like lots of people to chip in with bringing the wizard to a version good enough to put live, sooner rather than later (and by live I mean linking to it from lots of places, from welcome templates to relevant mediawiki interface, etc). Discussion is here Wikipedia talk:Article wizard2.0. PS Sorry for cross-posting, I've already noted on WP:VPR, but I think done right it could be a great thing, and doing it right needs lots of input. Rd232 ^talk 01:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that this looks pretty good. I'd advocate its being disseminated as Rd232 suggests, with possible revision in accordance with any minor quibbles. Deor (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

An overview of Outstanding issues is now available at Wikipedia talk:Article wizard2.0#Outstanding issues. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 18:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Pop quiz

How many indefinite mutual interaction (i.e. Editor A may not discuss/interact with/antagonize Editor B) bans are active right now? No looking at RFAR histories or WP:SANCTION. And no, this is not an invitation for editors under these topic bans to tiptoe around them by mentioning the topic ban, thus provoking a stupid meta discussion and/or a block. Protonk (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

1, 2, . . 5! 3, sir? 3! TNXMan 03:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Um... 60? 90210? Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me}   04:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Too many? Too few? Uhh... 42? 867-5309? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Shoot the hostage. Livewireo (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Does it count if one or both parties are no longer active on Wikipedia? -- llywrch (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I would assume so; a restriction can remain active even if the parties are inactive at a particular moment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this a question to which you have an answer? Or are you looking for someone who does? Horologium (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

A more interesting question besides just a pure number could be a "trend line". That is, at what rate are the number if interaction bans occurring? Is it possible to project ahead, and compute the approximate date by when no one will be allowed to contact anyone? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• If I had to guess off the top of my head, I'd say less than three dozen(ish). If I can take the liberty of reading between the lines, if your concern is that these are nearly impossible for the admin corps to track, I wouldn't worry. I guarantee the other editor in the MIB will be more than happy to report an infraction, and link to the ban discussion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Repeated disruptive edits

User By78 is indulging in disruptive edits. This is happening repeatedly even after warning has been issued by the Administrators. In the Arihant class submarine page Disruptive edit the word harbor trial has been replace with float out.Bcs09 (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you attempted to discuss this issue with the editor? Also, have you notified By78 of this posting? TNXMan 16:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

New codification of incivility

Since managing incivility is an important role of admins, I'm advising here that the way in which the various aspects of incivility are codified in the policy on civility has been completely re-organised. Each aspect is now identified by number.

This re-organisation may be of assistance to admins when it comes to citing the policy when dealing with possible instances of incivility. In addition, five key factors that admins might take into account in judging whether an editor has been uncivil are listed in the lead.

The discussion that led to these changes—which included two arbitrators (Carcharoth and Casliber)—is here; that section sets out the old and the replacement text in clearly marked boxes. Tony (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

So now we can say "Sir! Your comment violates the civility policy, section 1 criteria a!" An interesting approach, I'm curious to see how it will work out. Nathan ^T 15:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for having a whack at it. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Good; per Gwen Gale. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I hope there will be feedback—from admins in particular—so that if necessary the wording can be refined over the next ?month or so. Tony (talk) 09:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Since enforcement is completely random, what's the point beyond a virtual paper shuffling exercise? --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's worth noticing how the civility policy has crept and covers judgmental edit summaries, with a definition that is so broad as to require a great deal of groupthink doubleplus good language modification before committing anything to an edit summary; and the spectacularly broad ill-considered accusations of impropriety which can cover just about anything anyone chooses it to cover. No wonder ANI of late has been brimming with people screaming that others have been incivil to them by, er, disagreeing on an AfD or not dancing on the head of a pin in an edit summary. Well done to all involved! (Unless sarcasm is now incivil, in which case I withdraw the sarcasm and replace it with irony). With such broad definitions, no wonder its enforcement is so completely random. How could it be otherwise? ➲ REDVERS ^{The internet is for porn} 10:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you're quite right, and whilst the revision is undoubtedly well-intentioned (like all these things) it does head in a general direction where WP:BUREAUCRACY starts to become an issue - except that these things are surely impossible to codify effectively enough for them to be well-implemented bureaucratically, creating inevitable unevenness in application which may well be more taken advantage of by bad faith editors than good faith ones. Two other thoughts. 1) Some of the specific points seem more to fall under, say, WP:GAME than "civility". When did misleading others (including deliberately giving false information) become "uncivil"? Or misquoting others or quoting out of context? Surely that's like saying a drive-by shooting is dangerous driving. 2) Defining civility too precisely just invites wikilawyering and the needless, tactical taking of offence to suit a particular purpose. It encourages wikidrama, rather than collaboration. Or to put it another way, it encourages "OMG that wasn't entirely nice! Something must be done!" instead of "Hey, that wasn't cool, but that's OK, we're none of us perfect and maybe you didn't mean it that way or come from a different cultural background or were just a bit pissed off, never mind, let's move on." In sum, I think a listing as is provided in that section is quite dangerous (although the whole policy suffers from the issue I make in point 2), and it should be made clear that these kinds of behaviours may be taken into consideration by admins dealing with allegedly uncivil behaviour (when acting qua admins!), but aren't a listing of Things To Take Offence At (WP:BEANS?). Rd232 ^talk 22:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat from a vandal

Wrong noticeboard. This is an incident. Please read the emphasised text in the edit notice when posting here. Uncle G (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry.  :) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Cognition

This user has had an unblock request up for several days. He has agreed to terms offered by Hersfold, one of which includes having a WP:MENTOR. But no one has volunteered to be a mentor; Hersfold specifically declined. I believe the mentor ought to be an admin, since this is not a typical WP:ADOPTion situation. I also am getting the feeling that no one is actually willing to mentor him. So, any takers? Mangojuice^talk 06:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This editor is a follower of Lyndon LaRouche, and has been extremely troublesome on those articles, as well as on articles about individuals, including BLPs, who have criticized LaRouche, or whom LaRouche has criticized. I'd therefore like to make sure that, if he's unblocked, he'll be topic-banned from LaRouche-related articles and talk pages, and also from making LaRouche-related edits to other pages. He kind of agreed to this on his talk page, but it was a little ambiguous. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I looked at that situation a bit before deciding I didn't want to touch it. Here's the problem. Anyone who could mentor Cognition and stop him from putting a LaRouche spin into articles would have to be aware of a huge number of obscure details surrounding LaRouche and his politics. Anyone with that knowledge would either have to be another LaRouche follower -- which would of course be a disastrous conflict of interest -- or a well-versed foe of LaRouche, in which case they would not want to have anything to do with Cognition. This is presumably why nobody will mentor him. rspεεr (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

There are editors familiar with LaRouche who could watch his edits and report to a mentor if he breaches the agreement. Not that I'm arguing in favour of Cognition being unblocked, because I don't think he should be. His edits were so far from Wikipedia's standards, and his ideas so extreme (e.g. the Queen is a "dope-pusher" [89]) that I see no possibility of his becoming a regular editor. But at least if he were kept away from LaRouche's favourite topics, it would limit the potential for damage. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking over his edits, I'm not convinced an unblock is wise but I'm willing to give him a chance. He should certainly be indefinitely topic banned from the Larouche Movement topic broadly defined (i.e. any article that has anything remotely to do with Lyndon LaRouche) - I'm not sure he'll be willing to participate under that topic ban but the ball's not really in his court on this. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 09:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and just to note, I'll take him under my wing if the topic ban is put in place. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he could be asked a few basic questions, such as, "Do you still believe the Queen is a dope-pusher?" If he says "yes" or some version thereof, then he can stay blocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If he agrees to stay away from Larouche Movement articles (broadly defined to mean anything that discusses the movement or LaRouche himself) I'd be happy to mentor him. Ironholds (talk) 12:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Meh, not really a valid question. The wikipedia community could care less whether a given user believes, for example, that Obama was born in Africa, as long as that belief doesn't effect their editing. (no, that isn't my belief, just FYI) Cognition's beliefs have obviously influenced his editing, so a more valid question would be "do you agree to edit under a ban from all LaRouche-related topics, including discussions and talk pages?" The real question of course is whether he would contribute anything positive to the encyclopedia if he were allowed to edit under such a topic ban. If all evidence points to Cognition being unable to avoid such topics, or unable to contribute positively in unrelated areas, there is no point in unblocking him. The Seeker 4 Talk 12:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be an excellent question to ask, and would likely be a show-stopper, as he's probably a single-purpose account. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I've asked him if he's willing to accept the broad, indefinite Lyndon LaRouche topic ban. If so, I'll unblock him under Ryan's mentorship, otherwise I think we can decline the unblock. Mangojuice^talk 14:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This looks like the perfect occasion for a link, possibly two links. Primarily WP:EARTH, secondarily WP:TURNIP. Durova³⁰⁸ 17:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Please nobody unblock him until he's responded to my question about alternate accounts, and I've had a chance to respond in kind. Since it is one of the conditions of his unblocking, I want to see what he's been up to during his block if anything. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Any large-scale semi-/automated article creation task require BRFA - needs discussion as to implementation

Could an uninvolved admin please review the below and determine the result?

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 66#Proposal: Any large-scale semi-/automated article creation task require BRFA

If the result is "proposal carried", how shall it be announced, implemented, and enforced? –xeno^talk 15:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's clear that there is broad community support for the idea of community input being required before mass article creation. But it's also just as clear that there isn't a consensus for how such a requirement would be implemented or enforced. Many seem to think WP:BAG is the way to go; at least one person pointed out that this is already a function the BAG performs and no proposal is necessary. I think many of the participants want another method. The question of how to make sure editors are aware of the rule has barely been addressed. And one comment brought up a strong point about enforcement which hasn't really been discussed: do we punish mass-creation without consultation by deleting the articles? What if they are borderline or appropriate ones? Does blocking really address the problem? No, it comes too late. So I think a new discussion is needed on these points. Mangojuice^talk 17:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was in the process of closing it. I've called "carried"; because the objections were in a clear minority and split on what was objectionable— but this does not preclude further discussion on the implementation details. — Coren ^(talk) 17:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I still think BAG is a good fit for this without creating Yet Another Committee. The other points though, I am certainly looking for input on. –xeno^talk 17:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Other than mass deletion, what would correct the bot-like inappropriate addition of thousands of low-quality stubs? Debating each one at AFD does not seem feasible. The removal should not take orders of magnitude more editor and admin time than the robocreation did. Edison (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That was my principal objection. Hopefully something gets hammered out in implementation that won't result in a policy which is easily gamed and/or unpalatable for the members of the community who didn't participate in the discussion. Protonk (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

admin Nightscream

I think it's time for Nightscream (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to lose his administrative priveleges. I first got to know about Nightscream back in February when I was reviewing his block of User:Asgardian. The resulting community discussion took place here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive184#Block of User:Asgardian. This is after he was substantially criticized for a previous block of Asgardian in late 2008; see User talk:Nightscream#Your block of Asgardian and User talk:Nightscream#Asgardian. See also User talk:Nightscream#Black Bolt & Living Laser and User talk:Nightscream#Non-constructive conduct. I haven't seen that Nightscream continues to abuse his blocking capability but he has certainly abused his protection tool since then. He semi-protected Towelie for 1 year, after being heavily involved in editing there. (He also had fully protected it indefinitely but reversed himself). Note User talk:Nightscream#RE: Towelie for a discussion that took place prior to that protection. He semi-protected Pandemic (South Park) for 1 year also after being involved in editing there. In both of these cases, the protection was designed to stop contributions that Nightscream didn't like -- ones I too don't like and think should have been removed, but I will not classify additions to a "cultural reference" section as vandalism. And he has protected Red Hulk twice; today it was full protection. This is one of the articles where Nightscream is deeply involved in a dispute with Asgardian. Asgardian is a troublesome editor. He's stubborn, and he has edit warred in the past. Still, it seems that no amount of warning Nightscream to avoid using administrative tools in situations he is involved in has any effect.

I may be interested in taking this to WP:ARBCOM but first I thought I would see what the broader admin community thinks. Mangojuice^talk 18:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Where is the RFA? Has this been to WP:RFC/U yet? –xeno^talk 18:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nightscream and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nightscream 2 are the two RfAs I see. — Kralizec! (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Have not taken it to RFCU; I can do that if people feel it would be helpful. The (successful) RFA is at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nightscream 2; there was a previous self-nom when Nightscream was very new. Mangojuice^talk 18:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, over-reliance on tools that don't seem to be working today! RFCU is usually a necessary step in the DR process. –xeno^talk 18:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive405#User:Angry Christian 2, Nightscream wrote "I'll make it a point from now on not to mix conflict participation with administrative actions. I apologize for failing to do so up until now. Nightscream (talk) 03:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)". Perhaps he needs to be reminded that he needs to avoid conflicts with all of his administrative tools, including protection... –xeno^talk 19:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

As a number of the links given in the original post show I have discussed various issues with Nightscream in an attempt to help resolve any problems. From what I've seen it seems like their frustration at the speed things have moved has resulted in them making use of admin tools in disputes they are engaged in. Clearly where if there is an obvious problem it is easy to move fast and hard on it but in some of the issues I've been helping them deal with a slower more cautious approach has been needed and (esepcially as some of this has been going on for years without a proper resolution) I understand it can be frustrating. It is worth noting that, in the cases I've been involved in, Nightscream's actions are usually the next best move it is just that they shouldn't be the one making it. I know mangojuice has been offering to check things over for Nightscream and advise where they can but they also appear to not have had the time for this recently and it might be the solution is for a few other admins (outside of the fields he edits in) to act in a similar capacity. Of course, Nightscream will have to also learn to be more patient as other people aren't as active as they are. (Emperor (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC))

I don't understand where Nightscream or Emperor gets the idea that I have offered to check things over for him. I have no particular objection, but in the AN discussion I linked to it was my advice, and the advice of several others, that he should post a request on a general noticeboard like this one or WP:ANI for review by whoever happens to read it. Mangojuice^talk 20:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Xeno, that we should see an RFC/U, and if there is support to be found there, an ArbCom case. Nightscream may have been warned about certain things, but was it in an official capacity? If an admin is going to lose his tools, I'd like to see him first reviewed through fair and due process, as with User:A Man In Black. BOZ (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

In Nightscream's defense, please note User_talk:J_Greb#Looking_for_input, wherein Asgardian's long history of provocation is being discussed; this is clearly an ongoing matter for him and Nightscream, and he has a long, long history of this sort of behavior against numerous other users. ThuranX (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps my memory of our discussion this past February is wrong--if so, I'm sorry--but thought I remembered Mangojuice telling me to contact him if Asgardian's behavior becomes an issue again.

In any event, this is what transpired: On numerous occasions, User:Asgardian has attempted to completely remove all references to comic book titles, issue numbers and dates from the bodies of articles, leaving them only in the ref tags. Typically, I and/or others opined that some occasional use of them is fine, as on the Black Bolt Talk Page. Back in February, I started a discussion the Comics Project Page in which I related Asgardian's claim that he and others had devised a format for such articles, and that this lack of issues and dates anywhere except in the ref tags was a part of it. The others there said that this was not true, and when I proposed the matter to them, three editors: Emperor, BOZ and J Greb, agreed that some use of such info is good, and that they should not be entirely removed. One person, Peregrine Fisher, said Asgardian's version read more smoothly. I tried to continue that discussion, but no one responded. Nonetheless, we had a consensus of four people, I thought.

On August 28, I left a message on Asgardian's Talk Page, because he was again removing that information from the Red Hulk article. He did not respond to my message, and continued to revert the article.

On August 30, I started a discussion on Talk:Red Hulk on four points on which Asgardian and I were in dispute. I contacted over 20 people to invite them to it (adhering to WP:CANVAS), but only three showed up, not counting Asgardian. All four of us agreed on three of the four points, one of which was again, the issue of issue numbers and dates. These were myself, Emperor, ThuranX and Peregrine Fisher, who now stated that he was also okay with some dates and issue numbers. This was four (or six if you count the discussion on the Project Page in February). On the fourth point, I was essentially outvoted, and I'm fine with that. I was hoping to wait it out until more people showed up, but ThuranX and Asgardian began editing the article again on August 31 (perhaps they thought the discussion ran its course), but in doing so, Asgardian again removed issue numbers and dates from the article. He continued to do this even though discussion on the Talk Page continued, a behavior for which he had previously been blocked. He again provided his position, which was that he didn't want a "laundry list" or "minefield" of issues numbers and dates that was impossible to read. I tried to point out to him that no one was advocating this, but merely an occasional mention of such things for important issues, as everyone in that discussion had stated, and that it did not have to be an all-or-nothing question. He did not respond to this point, but he continued to revert the article, and made statements regarding his work on other articles that the others found profoundly disturbing. They are discussing what actions to take against Asgardian on JGreb's Talk Page, with JGreb suggesting a "long block" for him.

I'm not privy to the matter of those other articles, but because he continued to revert Red Hulk during a discussion, I decided to protect the article from everyone but admins for (IIRC) a week. This was not to push a particular version. It was only a one-week protection intended to hold off until the discussion could be resolved, since, as everyone knows, edit warring during a discussion is against policy, and is what his last unreversed block was for, IIRC. I normally would've preferred not to do this myself, but since Mangojuice had not responded on my Talk Page I felt I had no options. I also did not know that merely protecting a page pending resolution to a dispute in which the admin is involved is considered to be as inappropriate, as blocking an editor is. Only after this, however, did I discover that Mangojuice did respond, but on his Talk Page, and to say that he was not active enough to intervene.

Despite this, Mangojuice has apparently found himself active enough to opine two things: That information has not been presented that Asgardian has misbehaved (despite my furnishing him with all the aforementioned information), and that my protecting the page was an inappropriate misuse of admin tools for which I should be de-sysoped, both of which I find to be assertions of breathtaking inanity. Regarding Asgardian, his recent behavior is just the latest in a long history of policy violations for which he has had four unreversed blocks imposed on him. Mangojuice is aware of this, and I certainly illustrated his recent misbehavior.

As for my page protection, I apologize for breaching a guideline that I was not aware of, but doing so is not the deliberate misuse that Mangojuice tries to portray it. Just as Wikipedia is a constant work in progress, so too is learning about all the various permutations of all the guidelines and policies, even for experienced editors like me. Now I know that even protection is considered inappropriate in these matters, so from now on, I'll make more frequent use of these Noticeboards. Taking away admin privileges for such a harmless Good Faith error is drastic, and unnecessary.

Complicating Mangojuice's bizarre viewpoint is that in illustrating his position on my Talk Page, he made a number of other accusations that he conflated with this matter, including some false statements in violation of WP:AGF, and even cited a comment by another editor, ThuranX that Thuran made in a completely unrelated matter. I have responded to each of these accusations in greater detail on Mangojuice's Talk Page. If anyone would like to question me further on this matter, please feel free to do so. Nightscream (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Denaldin Hamzagic

Why can't I create an article on footballer Denaldin Hamzagic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vjecnobordo (talk • contribs) 19:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It is the consensus of the community that Mr Hamzagic does not meet the inclusion criteria for an article in the encyclopedia. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denaldin Hamzagic. You may also wish to familiarise yourself with the inclusion criterion for athletes at WP:Athlete and the general notability criterion at WP:Notability. Kind regards, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, Mr. Hamzagic has recently signed with FK Sarajevo (a professional club) and has already played for the team in the UEFA Europa League. Would probably pass WP:ATHLETE now. As a football manager would say: "The boy done good". Fribbler (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Gaelen S.

Gaelen S. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

[90] I been helping this User out. Can someone review User:Gaelen S. rollback rights. I'm finding the user reverting good faith edits.

Reverts such as these, [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] All in one day. The user received there rollback rights on September 1, 2009 [98] and they only have 240 Article edits. [99] I don’t think there ready for rollback rights. Don’t get me wrong, They revert Vandalism. Its just that I don’t think they know what there doing. Yes, I know we all make mistakes. I just want someone to check it out. That's all. --David - (Wikipedia Vandal Fighter). 21:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I too noticed a revert to a good edit (not just good faith) to one of my watched pages, so I informed Gaelen, and Acalamari (talk · contribs) (who granted the request). While we seemed to agree that no further action was necessary, I find the number of diffs you have brought up a bit worrying. Thanks for expressing your concerns. As a courtesy, you should consider informing the user when you bring up their edits on a noticeboard (I have now done this). Regards, decltype (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank You, Decltype. I forgot to do that.--David - (Wikipedia Vandal Fighter). 22:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

First, I'd like to thank you for bringing this up, as it seems to become serious. However, this is what WP:ANI is for; don't worry about it for now, though. Second, reverting good faith edits is just as bad, if not worse, than edit warring. Driving off a potential user cannot be treated lightly. That said, I really think we should give the user another chance. If (s)he makes more mistakes(?), then removal of rollback is in order, followed by a block if the behavior is continual. Hopefully, it won't come to that. Cheers, I'^mperator 23:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)