Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) at 00:44, 22 October 2010 (→Block of TreasuryTag: and why are you whispering, anyway ??). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Co-editor apparently banning me from pages

See /Smatprt. A topic ban from the topic of William Shakespeare has been proposed and has considerable support, and a mutual editing restriction on all parties is also under consideration.

Moved to subpage as it's rather big. --TS 22:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Datestamp of this comment is faked in an attempt to delay archiving of this pointer. --TS 22:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the two editors (I am both the plaintiff and, in the thread, subsequently indicted)for whom a topic ban has been proposed, User:Smatprt, has noted on the page that he is experiencing problems with his computer, and will be travelling until the 18th, and thus cannot respond to the charges or issues raised concerning his editing behaviour. I suggest the page here retain this notice until at least that date.Nishidani (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Heymid, User:AIK IF 2010

Heymid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

AIK IF 2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Five days ago I blocked Heymid for seven days: the block should have less that 48 hours to run. However, just now Favonian (talk) asked me if Heymid was socking. It sure looked that way to me, and Favonian has indef-ed AIK IF 2000 as a sock-puppet of Heymid.

What is to be done with Heymid? I don't trust myself with resetting Heymid's block - I had felt Heymid was making progress, and I feel really let down. So... throwing it open to the community.

I'll let all parties know straight after posting this. TFOWR 22:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I have followed this sad case from the sideline. I'm afraid we must conclude that Heymid just doesn't get it and an indef block is called for. Favonian (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

At least, even by sock standards, he isn't very smart. He might as well have called his sock "Heymid#2"... HalfShadow 22:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* Sorry to say it, but I concur with Favonian. —DoRD (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching this drama for a few months, and I must sadly agree with Favonian. Access Denied  23:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You're certain enough it is him, right? I've seen a few banned users pretend to be socks of other users in order to get them in further trouble. HalfShadow 23:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) WikiChecker seems down right now, but I have to say that the time this occurred is starting to trouble me: it's just barely consistent with what I know of Heymid's timezone (UTC+2) and edit habits. Is it worth getting a checkuser to confirm before we make a huge mistake? TFOWR 23:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm just saying, I've personally seen false-socking done at least three times. It may or may not be worth the effort, but it can't hurt to check. HalfShadow 23:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

We have 48 hours before the change to make an indef makes any difference, so I don't see any cause to undo my block yet.—Kww(talk) 23:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Better safe than sorry, so yes: let's request a CU. Speaking of timezones, I'm in the same one as Heymid. Goodnight! Favonian (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it's noted that the sock was named after Heymid's 7th most edited article, AIK IF. Not a good way to not get caught... Doc talk 23:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Indefed. If he protests and someone wants to run a checkuser, that's fine by me. Heat to light ratio with this editor has never been good, and I don't see any loss in losing him.—Kww(talk) 23:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• I think an indef block is too far, yes he did the most obvious sock violation I ever seen, but I think one last chance would be good. If he violates his terms, he could just be reblocked indef. I could tutor him. Thanks Secret 23:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "Indefinite"<>"infinite". If you can come to some form of reasonable mentorship/tutoring agreement with him, I wouldn't object.—Kww(talk) 23:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
• Checkuser requested. TFOWR 23:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Checkuser completed. TFOWR 23:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
• I wouldn't be surprised if this is the false flag sockmaster, so I would definitely suggest a CU take a look. –xeno 23:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

CU says it is likely that it is Heymid. The thing with Heymid is that he causes problems without even trying and shows a distinct lack of clue, so this is hardly a shock. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I never would've figured they were savvy enough to use proxies, so I'm still not entirely convinced. Anyhow, I've allowed the talk page access since there has been a length and rationale change on his block. –xeno 00:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Still, you have to admit, it looked too obvious. Generally a socker isn't that...incompetent. HalfShadow 00:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, a surprising number are. People ask how I detect some of them so easily, and the only answer I can give is that they really don't seem to have a clue as to how to cover their tracks. The ones that do generally never get blocked.—Kww(talk) 01:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite often the case that (at least at first) the sock names are very easy to spot, e.g. User:Newcastleunitedfan at first socked with User:Newunited. Fram (talk) 07:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Could we please show Heymid the door? Too much disruption for too long, no clue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

A "from the sidelines" opinion, been watching Heymid for a while and his behaviour has basically gone like this: do something silly -> get told off -> sort of say sorry, but wording suggest he thinks he actually did ok -> promises to not do it again -> X days pass -> do it again. This has been repeated numerous times, with a little DIDNTHEARTHAT thrown in on top. I think this is a WP:COMPETENCE failure. I mean, he's a nice enough guy (I suspect he is relatively young, which accounts for a lot of the interaction problems) but seems unable to understand the words "Heymid, just go edit articles for a few months". --Errant 07:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Note that Heymid has now left a slightly less than civil request on his talk page to close this thread and mark User:AIK IF 2010 as "impersonating" him instead of being his sockpuppet, though from what I see of this thread and the SPI, it seems that he's trying too late to cover his attempt at sockpuppetry rather than accepting that he shouldn't have done it. GiftigerWunsch 14:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I've struck part of my comment above since it seems the checkuser result changed from likely to possible after I left it, and there are some fairly legitimate concerns that this may be the "false flag" vandal. GiftigerWunsch 16:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'd be surprised if AIK IF 2010 (talk · contribs) was a sock of Heymid. I agree firstly with what xeno says above: I wouldn't have thought that Heymid would be savvy enough to make use of an open proxy. There also doesn't seem to be motivation for it, considering that at the point when AIK IF 2010 was registered Heymid could just have created a new account via his own IP address. Using an open proxy is standard procedure for someone who wishes to impersonate another user, since it makes any technical links ambiguous, and we therefore have to rely on the behavioral evidence. The behavioral evidence in this particular case, is, frankly, trying way too hard. Kww mentions above that the socks that we catch are often obvious, which is true, but this is off the scale. Heymid even pointed out himself that the account was quacking much too loudly to be a natural duck; he's clearly aware how obvious the link appears, why would he have made it that obvious in the first place?
To speak plainly, I imagine that there are plenty of people who would get a kick out of getting Heymid indefinitely blocked by impersonating him as a sock.
I am aware that there has been a pattern of disruption from Heymid in the past, and if I'm honest I've often found myself muttering in favour of a block. However, although I'm 100% aware that there are users who find the accusation of sock-puppetry credible, I'm worried that the suspicion of socking is being used as a cover reason for getting rid of a user who many find annoying, this seems to be realized in some of the comments above.
Kind regards, Spitfire 23:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. While I do not think an indefinite block is unwarranted ( I have previously called for one), it should not come as a result of this incident. The suspected sock was trying way too hard. decltype (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Spitfire. Since there's only less than a day left on the original block, IMO we should simply unblock him now. T. Canens (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Pointing out that the CU was, from a technical perspective, inconclusive. There is no technical evidence tying those two accounts together. Adding behavior, the apparently blatant socking through an open proxy, either Heymid is playing a game with us or someone else is by trying to get him into trouble. In this particular case I find the latter much more probable. Amalthea 08:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

If this were Heymid, we have to believe that (a) Heymid is daft enough to do this, and (b) smart enough to use proxies. I can't reconcile that. I noted above that the time this occurred seems a little off - throughout this Heymid has been in pretty regular contact with me via email (moaning about the block length, etc...) and I've also now had a chance to check Heymid's editing times. AIK IF 2010 was editing right at the extreme range of Heymid's editing times. I'm not comfortable leaving Heymid indef-ed for socking. If we want to discuss an indefinite block for competence, or whatever, let's do that. But we should sort this current block out and give Heymid the chance to participate. TFOWR 10:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Based on comments above with regards to inconclusive checkuser findings, I've reduced the original block to 'time served' and Heymid (talk · contribs) is now unblocked. Heymid is reminded that he had run out of chances even before this incident; and should focus on improving the mainspace, and stay away from the meta locations as much as possible. –xeno 13:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

@TFOWR I do think he is daft enough to do that. He said he had work he would have to do if he was blocked. Updating stats for his favourite team seems to be exactly the kind of thing he was talking about. As for smart enough to use proxies, that is extremely easy to do since there are hundreds of webpages out there that tell you how or even do it for you. It's definitely possible its not him. But its not as impossible as you make it sound. All past knowledge of him does point to it being him. -DJSasso (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I also do not think he is unknowledgeable about what an open proxy is either (he has demonstrated the ability to learn/pickup information quickly). I don't disagree with the unblock, but I think rather than being unlikely the connection is simply inconclusive. Another question is who would want to impersonate Heymid. I mean, I know he has annoyed people here but no one seems to have hounded or followed him before this. With that said; a very last chance is always preferable. --Errant 13:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a troll who impersonates users who are already in a bit of hot water, in an attempt to make things worse. Whether this was the case here or not - we don't know - but blocking this user indefinitely on purely circumstantial evidence leaves me uncomfortable. –xeno 13:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

@Djsasso: oh, I'm damn certain he's daft enough to make that edit - my point was purely about proxies. I'll defer to your knowledge in that area, however. TFOWR 13:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Further indication that the AIK IF 2010 was not Heymid: whenever Heymid (talk · contribs) updates Template:2010–11 Elitserien standings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), he updates the order of entries for relegation, etc. - AIK IF 2010 (talk · contribs) did not do this. –xeno 13:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I offered to mentor Heymid with a strict warning. I do hope he accepts. Secret 01:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok he accepted my mentoring. Secret 17:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Remove Inka 888 from twinkleBlacklist?

A while back Inka 888 was added to the twinkle blacklist for misuse and a high level of incompetence. Since then Inka has made huge progress with the help of mentor Intelati (talk · contribs) and a few talk page stalkers, myself included. So I'm proposing that Inka be removed from the blacklist. Let's see what everyone thinks. Access Denied  04:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I would Say Inka has made incredible progress, and has just a short mentoring term left. As his mentor I would say let him get acquainted with Huggle and rollback for one week, then on 10/25/2010 UTC time, remove his name from the blacklist. This is to alliviate any overload of "New things".--Talktome 04:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I have taken a look at his edits since he started using Huggle on the 17th and it seems he has been doing a good job, no mistakes. I do believe, though, that Inka already has TWINKLE with this edit, which could possibly be a go around of the blacklist or him using Friendly (since it is being merged with TWINKLE). In the last three days, this is the only instance of TWINKLE use, so I am guessing (and hoping) that it is Friendly use.

Otherwise, I do believe the wait to get "acquainted" with Huggle and rollback should wait a month. I also believe that mentorship should not end at a specified time, but should be until Intelati feels Inka is ready. When I was under mentorship, it didn't end for almost 6 months. We don't want Inka slipping back into old habits. I also feel that once mentorship does end, Intelati and others should check in periodically to see how Inka is doing, check for mistakes, problems, make comments, even give barnstars if needed. My mentor still does that with me from time to time, but not as often as before. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

For your pondering: When I read this, I checked the blacklist. A large number of the people there are no longer active at all. Some have not edited for over a year, others seem to have retired. We might want to reorder the list so that the active users show up first, as the line goes on for a while. That or cull the list of the inactive users. Either way it was very hard to read down the full list. Then again my screen isn't that large, but still. Sven Manguard _Talk 06:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Per above, the full list. I suggest in the future that new additions are added at the beginning, rather than the end, of the list, at the very least.

1. "Dilip rajeev", active
2. "Jackmantas", last seen Aug 08
3. "Flaming Grunt", last seen May 09
4. "Catterick", indef blocked Aug 09
5. "44 sweet", last seen Aug 09
6. "Sarangsaras", indef blocked Sept 09
7. "WebHamster", indef blocked Nov 09
8. "Radiopathy", active
9. "Nezzadar", last seen Dec 09
10. "Darrenhusted", active
11. "Notpietru", last seen Mar 10
12. "Arthur Rubin", active
13. "Wuhwuzdat", active
14. "MikeWazowski", active
15. "Lefty101", last seen May 10
16. "Bender176", indef blocked Jun 10
17. "Tej smiles", possibly active
18. "Bigvernie", possibly active
19. "TK-CP", active
20. "NovaSkola", active
21. "Inka 888", subject of this ANI
22. "Polaron", active
23. "SluggoOne" possibly active

Sven Manguard _Talk 07:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Aw shucks Sven, now you have to advise every single editor in that list that you have mentioned them at ANI ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it's necessary. We aren't discussing them, only the list they are on. If we go into their individual merits, then it will become necessary to tell them. Sven Manguard _Talk 00:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Back on point -

Unless memory fails me, I believe I'm the admin who implemented putting Inka 888 on the blacklist; I am perfectly fine with taking them off if those who have been mentoring and advising feel that they're being helpful now. We could always return them to it if there turns out to be a problem, and I don't see any reason to believe Inka is operating in bad faith here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive edits and usage of abusive language by YellowMonkey

First, User:YellowMonkey removes content from an article and cleverly disguises it in the edit summary. He then reverts my attempts to improve a related article without giving any explanation. On being told to explain his reverts and removal of content, he ends up calling me a "retarded nationalist". Rest is for administrators to conclude and decide. --King Zebu (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing was hidden or disguised in that edit summary. The second diff was rightly reverted; you wrote in an unsupported opinion stating that things had 'gone smoothly.' The actual epithet he used is unacceptable, period. But so are your edits, which are indistinguishable from edits with a pro-nationalistic bias. YellowMonkey is indeed completely correct that at every sporting event worldwide if someone is giving a speech at the closing they will praise it as some variant of "Perfect, the best event ever." It's practically in the contract that they must do so, and of about as much use as any politician's statements in such circumstances are. It would be a really good idea for people to be more careful about their posts on ANI reflecting reality. → ROUX ₪ 07:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

(EC) I'm not an admin but did you show the wrong diff? The first diff doesn't show any removal of content but moving it around, which is reflected in the edit summary. While this isn't the place to mediate content disputes, I note that the article previously including several sentences in the WP:LEDE on the closing ceremony but none in the article, which is rather bad considering the lede is supposed to be a summary of the article. I haven't looked in to the other diffs since I think we need to clarify where this removal of content occured first your first diff doesn't show any. Nil Einne (talk) 07:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

To the OP: It should be noted that he didn't call you a "retarded nationalist", he called the speaker of the quote he removed a "retarded nationalist". Admitedly, not the best thing to call anyone, but the comment does not appear directed at you, rather at the person who called the games "truly exceptional". --Jayron32 07:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, looked to me like it was directed at Zebu. Has YellowMonkey been notified?→ ROUX ₪ 07:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

He hadn't, so I did so here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

He was actually. Look at the section above yours.Fainites scribs 08:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I just skimmed for words like "ANI" as a header before placing the notice. My goof. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

There was no difference between the two, merely placement (see here; I copied the two passages into a sandbox to compare). This is why I said that users should be more careful to ensure that postings to ANI be reflective of reality, and not for example editorialize on diffs when simply looking at the diff proves the editorializing is wrong. → ROUX ₪ 07:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

There is some confusion here, I guess. Just to clarify -- in this edit, YellowMonkey removed the quote by the president of the CGF. He didn't specifically mention the removal of the quotation and hence the "cleverly disguised" remark. Secondly, in this revert, YellowMonkey reverted my attempts to reorganize the article, to specifically state that certain information were allegations and should not be stated as facts, and to remove certain content which was not supported by the given citations. I gave detailed explanation for my edits in the edit summaries. And that "retarded nationalist" remark was obviously directed at me. --King Zebu (talk) 07:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

If you mean the "truly exceptional" quote, it's not removed in that diff. It's down at the bottom. Also - accusing someone of "cleverly disguising" content removal is very uncivil. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done if it's a true bill, but if it turns out to be an error, then a retraction and apology is due. More to the point, it puts the "retarded nationalist" comment in context, if indeed it was directed at Zebu.Fainites scribs 08:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed I think both me and Roux have compared the moved contents and found that they are the same. Roux's idea is a good one (I just compared the text side by side initially) and you can see the results here showing that nothing is different between the contents moved around, not even one character. I copied the text that was moved around between reversions to the sandbox, the reason for the version 1 and version 2 is so the software will accept the different versions. (I see Roux also provided a link, sorry missed that.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Re "retarded nationalist", at first read through I thought it meant Zebu. Next time I thought it meant Fennell (author of the quote). Can YellowMonkey please clarify this?Fainites scribs 08:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that even if it was referring to the author of the quote, it's still inappropriate per BLP. (It's also a rather strange comment since I'm not sure how or why the Jamaican head of the CGF is a retarded nationalist for calling the Delhi CG truly exceptional, something which YM him or herself acknowledges is somewhat expected of them.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that if it was directed at the editor, it's a pretty bad violation of WP:NPA and might be actionable. If it's merely about the author of the original quote, it's contra-WP:BLP and admonishment will be different. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Right at the top of this page under the navigational box, it says in bold: "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." Did you attempt to do so, King Zebu? This seems like unnecessary drama which could've been settled on his talk page, since as shown above there hasn't been any content actually removed. The issue here is the alleged BLP violation or personal attack. WP:Dispute resolution notes that ANI is not the first port of call. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 09:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see any issue with YellowMonkey's edits. The content removal charge doesn't appear to hold up. In the "reverts my attempts to improve" case, King Zebu appears to have replaced well sourced facts with numerous "alleged" qualifiers (amazing that someone could chuck a washing machine out of a window!), which is bold but then, once reverted, should go through a consensus seeking process on the article talk page. I suppose YM should explain 'retarded nationalist', or offer an apology if KZ wants one. That is unkind, but I don't see it as a grievous insult. except when hurled at an actual nationalist who happens to be retarded. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Amazing an administrator - editor allegedly calls an editor or a subject a retard nationalist and we see a rush to come to his defence. Also the administrator-editor has received a notice which he deletes but does not comment or answer issues directly. Why? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

RegentsPark -- no matter how well placed a source is, an allegation is an allegation. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and therefore the concerned article should not state these allegations as facts. --King Zebu (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

My point is that, when reverted, you should bring it up on the talk page and see if you can get consensus for those edits. I'm not eager to comment on whether the alleged qualifiers should be included in the article or not, this is not the forum for that, but, generally, when section headings include the word "Allegations" or "Alleged", I see that as a strong indication that either the section shouldn't be there in the first place or there is an attempt to water down the material. I suggest recourse to the talk page. IMO, I'd also ignore the retarded nationalist comment, unkind though it is, because, in isolation, it is not strong enough to be actionable. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, going through this edit again, I do realize that YM didn't actually remove the quotation but merely placed it elsewhere. And yes, perhaps my "cleverly disguised" comment was a bit uncivil but that in no way justifies the personal attack. Secondly, YM continues to revert my edits to the article blatantly without giving any explanation. Whether it be removal of inaccurate information or adding "alleged qualifiers" -- Gone! without any explanation. Thirdly, someone mentioned here that I should have raised the issue on YM's talkpage first before coming here. Two points come to mind -- A) Based on my previous experience, I know that any attempt to start a discussion with him would have gone in vain. B) The fact that he has not participated in this discussion yet underscores the validity of point A. Going through all the dispute resolution noticeboards, I guess Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts would be a more suitable noticeboard than this one (pardon me but this only the second time I have been involved in a major dispute and I'm not very well aware of the norms here). Anyways, seeing so many here rushing to defend YM even after he goes around showering insults on others is quite disappointing to say the least. The only thing I can take from here is this -- write a couple of featured articles, become an administrator and then you are free to -- A) Revert edits by other Wikipedians without providing any justification and B) Insult the minnows like me. --King Zebu (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Some of these people who are going after admins as a group the past twenty four hours ought to submit an RfA. Go on. It isn't hard. Just step down from the peanut gallery and put your record in front of the community. What we ought to have is a template, just an invitation to have an RfA. To be handed out when they lump all admins together when they complain about the claimed actions of a few. Jeez.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies if I "lumped all administrators together" but the sad part is when some of the administrators chose to ignore the abusive language by those from their kindred while they are rather quick to take action against non-administrators. And frankly, raising an RfA against an administrator is also pretty much pointless because some of you will end up telling me to ignore the nationalist retard remark because it is not a "grievous insult". --King Zebu (talk) 04:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt meant that editors making blanket complaints about the admin corps should be met with a suggestion to undergo a Request for adminship themselves, not to issue a Request for comment on a particular admin. (At least that's how I understood it). ---Sluzzelin talk 04:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yellowmoney twice reverted inside 24 hours without even a mention or attempt to resolve the dispute on talk. Even if his revrts were right such incivility in what was in fact a desiguised edit summary as "nationalist editors" or whatever is certainly unnaceptable.

Im an uninvolved editor in this dispute, and have restored the changes pending attempts to discuss at Talk:Concerns and controversies over the 2010 Commonwealth Games#reverts/edit war.Lihaas (talk) 10:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I can vouch for Zebu on one point: Lack of communication. I have been trying to discuss my block which was for 2 weeks with Yellowmonkey for the past three weeks, but there has been no communication. Here too Yellowmonkey is absent. If it is not kosher to make common-cause like this, it is just because I am not aware of the rules. Another editor here made remarks that complaints should be made elsewhere against the said administrator, what for I wonder? So that the said administrator remains silent and others rush to defend him and try to run a steamroller over the complainant? There was a reference about some kind of group. The only group that Zebu and this editor belongs to is The brotherhood of those who have been run-over by Yellowmonkey. This editor has reminded those here that Yellowmonkey is an administrator who handed a two week block to an editor (see details here) User_talk:YellowMonkey#Blocked_editor_humbly_requests_explanations for pov, troll and taunting, and then Yellowmonkey allegedly abuses an editor (or the subject). So there is one set of rules for himself (Yellowmonkey) and another for others. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Taking the "Roman" out of "Roman Catholic"

User talk:71.0.213.123 – who may also be User talk:150.199.97.75, User talk:71.145.180.157, User talk:71.145.170.188 – has been removing "Roman" from instances of "Roman Catholic". The editor has been shown that Misplaced Pages consensus is that such behavior is disruptive (here, here, here and here), and also that even the Archidiocese of New York and the Vatican ,, use "Roman Catholic", and has been given two final warnings , but continues to make these edits , . Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

User has been notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I recall this behaviour as characteristic of a certain blocked user? S.G. _ping! 08:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Who? Fainites scribs 08:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The names in the AN/I threads I cited above were User:Vaquero100 and User:The Catholic Knight. Are they blocked? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Neither is blocked. Vaquero100 hasn't edited since 2006, and TCK not since May 2010. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That's the one, the Catholic Knight. I thought they had been blocked. Could be them logged out I suppose, but then this particular 'beef' has quite a following. S.G. _ping! 09:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Anywho, the first IP has clearly continued in vandalistic behaviour beyond a final warning, despite having seen consensus and been rather patiently (I feel) reminded of it by Ken. The final warning was actually several edits ago. WP:AIV wouldn't have a problem with that one so I've blocked that IP for 24 hours for vandalism, I'm looking at the other two now. S.G. _ping! 09:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, the other three are clearly the same person or group (identical edit summaries). One is blocked already for three months so the others were free to edit, one could argue for some sort of evasion but it's hard to pin down with IPs. S.G. _ping! 09:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Undoubtedly the same person, though. If the pattern holds, they'll stop editing with their current IP address and start editing with another, so there's really nothing else to do but keep an eye out on their favorite articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking over the contribs, it doesn't look very likely to me that the IPs and The Catholic Knight are the same person - there's almost no overlap in articles (which is surprising since the shared topic area is Catholicism) and they seem to have different styles. The IPs are clearly the same -- same style of edit summary, lots of overlapping articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the IP addresses, it seems doubtful that they're the same user.

• 71.0.213.123 is from Jefferson City, Missouri.
• 150.199.97.75 is from Columbia, Missouri.
• 71.145.180.157 is from Pflugerville, Texas.
• 71.145.170.188 is from Round Rock, Texas.

I'd guess there were at least two editors involved. — Fly by Night (talk) 11:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Could those be regional networks? Missouri and Texas are not so far away. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about Missouri AND Texas, nor the two Texas locations, but being originally from Missouri, I do know that Jeff City and Columbia are only like 20-30 minutes from each other by car, so, somebody in the middle might well be able to hit IP ranges from either. umrguy42 16:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoever is behind those IPs, he/she is clearly being a dick, I'd recommend a range block. GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• It took me a few hours, but I think I found the master: Rev.JamesTBurtchaell,csc (talk · contribs). For a summary of typical edits and the IPs used, see User:Drmies/Roman Catholic?. Since I wasted the entire morning looking for this, I'd appreciate it if someone else would file an SPI--isn't that the appropriate thing to do here? I don't think I've ever started one before, and unfortunately I don't have the time to learn it right now. Beyond My Ken, I think you know how to do this, no? I'm sorry for leaving this to others, but I really need to get back to work. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the data - I may have time to file an SPI later today or tonight. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Jefferson City and Round Rock are, according to Google Maps, 730 miles, 12½ hours apart by car. — Fly by Night (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

How far they are by car is surely relevant, but important also is the distance the way a duck flies. Consider the contributions from the following IPs:

• 150.199.97.75 (talk · contribs)
• 71.145.180.157 (talk · contribs)
• 71.145.170.188 (talk · contribs)
• 71.0.213.123 (talk · contribs)
• 71.145.143.99 (talk · contribs)
• 76.22.103.246 (talk · contribs)
• 71.145.162.148 (talk · contribs)
• 71.145.145.196 (talk · contribs)
• 71.145.166.252 (talk · contribs)
• 71.200.152.165 (talk · contribs) (only a few edits of our type, but similar IP). Drmies (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

As someone who currently lives in Fulton, Missouri, on the third leg of a triangle formed by Columbia and Jeff City in Missouri I can tell you that at least one IP address of a computer that I use actually shows up as Cape Girardeau, Missouri which is well over 100 miles away. Why, how, and what goes on with IP addresses, and if this is an anomoly unique to this part of Missouri I dont know. Just wanted to pass on that just because someone has an IP address to a particular community does not mean they live anywhere near that community or have ever been to that city (I myself have never been to Cape G and couldnt even pronounce it correctly if I tried, I'm a transplanted NYer carpetbagger living in the middle of hillbilly central).Camelbinky (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That's true everywhere. Most of the pRon sites I visit give my location anywhere from Montreal Quebec to Windsor Ontario, based on my IP at the time. Anyone who has tried that trip knows that even with good traffic that's an 8 hour drive. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

SPI filed Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Good call. Even if it's not sock puppetry, it has to be meat puppetry. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Just for the sake of completeness, I'll mention that in this edit one of the IPs identifies himself by the name mentioned above. If that's the same Rev. James T. Burtchaell mentioned here, I think perhaps that information could be posted on the talk page of any IP he starts using. That oughta give him the message. (Not exactly a child molester, he only diddled around with college boys, but still he was their professor and all.) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

If anything I just posted here goes too far, feel free to redact. I'm feeling a little queasy about it myself. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no way to know if the account with that name and the IP who signed that name, are the real-life person by that name. Could be a troll using that name, for instance, or someone trying to sully the name even more. In any case, it's irrelevant, because the actions are disruptive whoever is behind them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Besides, the account name above is labelled "csc" or Congregatio a Sancta Cruce {"Congregation of the Holy Corss"), while the IP signed as "SJ" or "Society of Jesus". I don't think it's possible to be both a Jesuit and a member of the Holy Cross, since they're rival orders. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is this an issue, when our consensus terminology for the church is Catholic Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I see that the article is at "Catholic Church" ("also known as the Roman Catholic Church" it says), but where is the consensus discussion located? Besides, if "Roman Catholic Church" is an acceptable alternative (and "Roman Catholic Church" redirects to "Catholic Church"), then the editor has no reason to remove "Roman" from "Roman Catholic Church" when it occurs, any more than unbroken redirects in wikilinks should be changed, especially when the grounds being cited are that "Roman Catholic" is improper and only Protestants use it. That's the kind of thing up with which we should not put. We're still talking disruption, regardless. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It formed sometime last year, apparently. I don't really feel like looking for it because I don't really care about the dispute. But having links to Roman Catholic Church over Catholic Church and edit warring over whether or not to use the redirect is really WP:LAME.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, which is why the IPs who are doing that are blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Um, maybe that's because this consensus is a surprise to a lot of people. (Well, this decision is news to me.) I'm not about to demand we re-open that can of worms, but there are lots & lots of people who expect to see that institution referred to as the "Roman Catholic Church" & for understandable reasons will change "Catholic Church" back to "Roman Catholic Church". Lots more than insist on the other way -- at least based on the anecdotal evidence I've seen so far. Too bad we can't have some simple procedure for changing the style in articles -- such as asking if anyone minds on the article talk page first, & if no one objects then making the change. -- llywrch (talk) 05:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

All the Orthodox Christian religions are Catholic and the Roman Catholic church is also an Orthodox church. Orthodox and Catholic are interchangeable. To say that the Roman Catholic church is THE Catholic Church is like saying that everywhere that Buddhism appears we are going to just call it the religion. It may be obvious to Londoner or hillbilly in Iowa who you are referring to when using Catholic Church but the Kazakhstani on the border with Russia is going to think Eastern Orthodox. "When you hear hoof beats think horses, not zebras" only works if you dont live in Africa, if you live in Africa then its "When you hoof beats think zebras, not horses". We are an international encyclopedia with no POV bias towards certain Christian or Western ideology.Camelbinky (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Some of the protestant Christian religions are "catholic", too: the Church of England "understands itself to be both Catholic and Reformed". I've no idea how far that extends within the Anglican Communion, but "The communion encompasses a wide spectrum of belief and practice including evangelical, liberal, and Catholic". TFOWR 23:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Admin tools misuse by Rich Farmbrough

Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)

User:Rich Farmbrough has misused his admin tools to speed up some out-of-process category elimination. First, Rich Farmbrough removed the "all articles" category from 18 maintenance templates, as far as I am aware without any discussion, notificiation, ... This is about cats like Category:All articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases, Category:All unreferenced BLPs, ... So far, this is somwhat normal WP:BRD editing, although it usually works better if you make such changes after some discussion and with consensus.

Worse is that Rich Farmbrough then went on to delete Category:All accuracy disputes, one of the categories he depopulated, only two days after he made the template change. He used the C1 (speedy delete, empty for four days) reason, which was obviously incorrect. His response to this was not some "sorry, I messed up", but "It was empty, but someone who didn't know what they were doing tampered.": a clearly uncivil comment, aimed at me, as I undid his emptying of the cats. He seems to have a problem in acknowledging mistakes, like at Template:BLP unsourced, when his addition of findsources had to be removed for the second time( (but it obviously is not his fault).

Can someone have a chat with Rich Farmbrough to remind him that he should remain civil, be open for criticism, and obviously follow the rules for the use of admin tools, like waiting four days before deleting an empty cat, even assuming that deleting a cat you have first emptied without any discussion is not a conflict of interest comparable to opening an AfD and then closing it as "delete"? Fram (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

RF again?! Sheesh, as if being sent to ANI barely three weeks ago wasn't enough. StrPby (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Uh well I haven't really edited since then. Strangers have made their home on my talk page and it's hours a day spent defending myself against a mixture of ludicrous attacks, reasonable concerns from people who nonetheless don;t actually read the replies and evrything in between. Rich Farmbrough, 15:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC).

• This user has become increasingly recalcitrant - the "I'm right and will do what I want" attitude needs to go. Upon being queried about their editing they either go off on a tangent or simply stop replying . They also recently reprogrammed AWB to remove the edit summary that denotes the edit as semi-automated - an inappropriate maneouver in light of the conditions upon which they were unblocked. Perhaps RFC/U is necessary here? –xeno 14:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Xeno, there was never any agreement, moreover the discussion on an agreement, (5 edits maybe out of dozens? hundreds) which might have been useful, were not mainly by involved parties. Rich Farmbrough, 15:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC).

I don't hang out here too much... but I do see RF around here a lot... and usually not in a positive manner.---Balloonman 15:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I can see why it seems that way, there was a massive discussion a few weeks ago that changed title at least twice, but apart from that I rarely visit ANI. Rich Farmbrough, 15:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC).

Adding: talk evasion. Two questioning posts by me about these edits on his Talkpage (, ) were hushed, unanswered, to Archive within hours (, ). After that, I received an uncivil snap (). -DePiep (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

DePeip you know full well that was a response to your threatening "Harrass or talk" post on my page of a few days ago, followed up by today's "stick the knife in" edits. A "snap" is really rather a mild response. Rich Farmbrough, 15:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC).

This is not the first example of a unilateral action, although it is the first one I know of that involves rapid category deletion. A concrete example: earlier this year R.F. unilaterally edited Template:Portal and Template:Portalbox (protected templates), removing parameters that were actively in use, and then began going through (via an unauthorized bot job) to change the template invocations on thousands of articles to match his changes to the template. This seems similar to the case at hand, which also involves changes to highly-used protected templates. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikibreak for me. Enough of this hounding. Rich Farmbrough, 15:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC).

It is not hounding to ask users to comply with editing guidelines and community norms. –xeno 15:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Rich, from an outside perspective, this does not look like hounding. Rather it looks like multiple editors disagreeing with the process you use, if that is the case the only solution is for you to adapt. Or for you to win them round to your view with proper discussion. I strongly disagreed with some of the WP:LINK advice the other day, but when it became very clear multiple experienced editors disagreed with my view I accepted it and work within those limits. Such is how "working within consensus" works. --Errant 15:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Recently I have slowly been coming round to the idea that Rich Farmbrough is not a net positive for this project. He does a substantial amount of good work, but the amount of mistakes and drama he causes is now outweighing this, regrettably. I do not believe he can be trusted to operate bots nor the administrator tools. He needs to stop automated editing altogether. I do not think another ANI discussion will achieve anything, but not sure what the next step should be. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I strongly suggest an WP:RFC/U be started on Rich Farmbrough; I don't think there is any other action that can be taken here at ANI at this time. –MuZemike 19:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Again ? Really? Proposed: Rich Farmborough be indefinitely restricted from running bots, using AWB, making bot-like edits, or making more than 4 edits per minute. → ROUX ₪ 21:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, there has never been a formal one started. But I suppose everyone is used to the 150+ KB threads we usually muster from here, and the fact that nobody is willing to do any legwork, sit down and collectively discuss how to handle this without pitchforks and torches. –MuZemike 21:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • At this point in time I'd be happy for those to be added as an editing restriction. But I also agree with MuZemike, and think we can discuss this in a more productive manner then we have done thus far, so I would see a RFC/U as my preferred option from here - Kingpin (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't see any point in wasting time on an RfC/U. It's just another month for Rich to evade criticism--oops, I mean go on a Wikibreak--and create more disruption. This page shows well over a year of the exact same disruption over and over and over and over. An RfC/U will just rehash what has already been stated. adding a subsection for editing restrictions. → ROUX ₪ 22:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The proposal is about botting. If I read others here well, it's also the word controversial that is a returning disruption (combined with high botic numbers indeed). This thread started about and misusing admin tools, and lack of searching consensus (like editing a protected template without discussion nor serious testing ). So I suggest adding along the lines of: "no controversial editing" and "no editing of (admin-only) protected pages", and "broadly interpreted". This all might sound harsh at first for the addressed editor, but they are the same rules any other editor has to live with when logging in. -DePiep (talk) 09:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit restriction proposal for Rich Farmborough

Proposed: Rich Farmborough is indefinitely restricted:
- from using AWB or any other mass-editing tool;
- from running bots of any sort;
- from making bot-like edits;
- from making more than four edits per minute;

Clarification: I intended this to be similar to the restrictions placed on Betacommand when he was originally banned from using bots or automating his edits in any way. No idea where to find the diff of those restrictions though. → ROUX ₪ 03:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Infractions to be dealt with via the usual series of escalating blocks. He may appeal these restrictions six months from the day they are implemented, or from the date of the last infraction, or from the day the last block from the last infraction is lifted, whichever comes later. → ROUX ₪ 22:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support - as proposer. Enough is enough. → ROUX ₪ 22:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support - seems like a solution to the immediate issues. Off2riorob (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Keeps making mass edits to add his own preferences to articles without discussion or consensus. So I agree that he needs to slow down, and stop making these bot-like edits, and stop using mass-editing tools to help him do this. His speed, lack of discussion/peer-review etc, have all led to too many mistakes. Including mistakes with his administrative tools, such as the recent uncat-tagging of the main page (which was done because he was making bot-like edits, apparently without properly reviewing them), and the changing of a fully protected template, which added ~"do not use this template in the article space" in massive red letters to about 23k articles (and it was against community consensus to add this template anyway - really needed to discuss (or at least test) before editing a fully-protected template like that). In some ways, even worse than all this, is his lack of collaboration or discussion with others when issues are raised (at times his lack of communication seems to be in violation of the bot policy). This is a shame, because Rich is a nice guy, but he's causing too many problems by using his programs to force his own preferences upon others. (I'm not however, convinced that 4 edits a minute is slow enough, and "bot-like" edits could be better defined). I've also left a note about this at WP:BON - Kingpin (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support While I'm sure he thinks he's improving the encyclopedia, this user has been making too many errors for too long and the "I'm right, I don't even need to explain myself" attitude must go. Can we add "from editing protected pages without first establishing consensus" to the restrictions? Anomie⚔ 23:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support - This has been an escalating problem. Combined with the evasive attitude, something needs to be done. I think the restrictions need to be clarified however. In particular, what are "bot-like" edits? Obviously, making the same change to 100 pages in a row is bot-like, but what if its only 30 pages, or 10? Can a single edit be "bot-like"? Vague restrictions will just lead to more drama later when there's confusion over whether or not a violation occurred. Mr.Z-man 01:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support It is deemed by the community that his edits are disruptive. I don't agree with the "from making more than four edits per minute" comment though in case he's fighting vandalism. Secret 01:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Too many controversial edits this frequently? Obviously, hasn't understood something. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Seems like a good idea. Being brought to AN/I and receiving various warnings doesn't seem enough. Bejinhan talks 06:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Kingpin13 describes the situation perfectly: Keeps making mass edits to add his own preferences to articles without discussion or consensus. I've seen several instances where he doesn't like a template name, so he changes (moves) it, and then continues with AWB to replace all instances of the old name to use the new name. This is effectively a rename without going through WP:requested moves, which should be the discussion forum for template names with thousands of transclusions. Rich initially did not respond to my request to stop these edits and seek consensus for the move, but only changed behaviour after his other actions led to the previous large ANI discussion. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 07:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• 'Support, sadly. Many of his bot edits are useful, but the unwillingness to openly discuss the problems with many of his othere edits (or, usually, some part of otherwise good edits) and to accept that his opinion may not (yet) have a sufficient consensus to be bot-implemented are a serious problem. Coupled with botlike edits on his main account, and the strong suspicion that he runs AWB without the AWB edit summary, and other problems, make me believe that a restriction is indeed necessary. We shuold be aware though that this means that a number of useful cleanup tasks will no longer be done. Fram (talk) 07:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• 'Caution – be careful what you wish for. I'm all for careful editing, but this move to block one of WP's most active editors strikes me as being potentially disruptive. I hope there are editors here who know how to step in to fill the breach once the detritus-eating Smackbot is switched off. --Ohconfucius 08:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Doubt It: We don't have that many bot operators, so without a bot like Smackbot, I shutter to think what we are going to do. I believe the part about running a bot should be removed, at least until another user, who has the technical skills and the continous availability to operate it, can be found. We don't want to be without a well-used and much-needed bot like Smackbot. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Does he publish the source code anywhere? If so, we could just create a duplicate bot. If not, would Rich be willing to transfer control to another member of the 'bot cabal'? If not, this might not be a good idea. I see it as a "the pilot isn't ideal, but we're still stuck on the plane with him" situation. Until we have damage control set up, Smackbot is too valuable to lose. Sven Manguard _Talk 08:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I think he did post some, if not all, of the AWB regexes for SmackBot the last time this happened, but I don't know where they are (or if he even did). (X! · talk)  · @977  ·  22:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Just a note on the collateral from this. He runs five bots. Sven Manguard _Talk 08:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Yeah, far too much collateral damage blocking this user from using/operating bots until a backup plan for them is in place. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
          • Far too much collateral damage caused by the bots. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
            • While this is an important point; only two of the five are active (Femto Bot (talk · contribs) and SmackBot (talk · contribs). And of those only SmackBot seems to be majorly active (to the point of doing crucial, missable work) --Errant 08:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
          • (edit conflict) Sorry, but exactly what tasks does SmackBot do which are going to significantly harm the encyclopedia if they're stopped? Maybe the template tagging I suppose, but that should be easier enough to write a replacement for, and it only needs to run once at the end of every month I understand correctly. If I get the time later, I'll try and sort through the BRfAs for SmackBot and (possibly the other bots) and see what they're actually approved to be doing. But there are a large number of BRfAs, so we'll have to see if I manage to get to it or not - Kingpin (talk) 08:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
            • Is this Misplaced Pages held hostage by a private bot? Wow. Unless there is a negotiating team with secret results, I'd say cut it and accept the (unknown, undescribed, possibely zero) collateral effects. -DePiep (talk) 09:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• Reluctant support. He has shown he is unable or unwilling to adjust his bots to follow consensus, guidelines, and policy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Support current proposal. Not to the point enough. As the thread shows, some requirement in edit with a consensus and not abusing admin tools is needed. Broadly interpreted. Still, I do not support any watering down of the current proposal. -DePiep (talk) 09:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC) (not an admin)
  • You mean that this restriction should be more focused on misuse of his admin tools, then misuse of bots/tools? Maybe true, but I don't personally see that as a reason for opposing this. However, maybe we should add a reprimand for performing controversial administrative action without community consensus? As well as possible wheel warring at Template:BLP_unsourced (if we see editing fully protected pages as administrative action that is). - Kingpin (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, is what I mean. And since other editors here (Kingpin13, Sladen, Xeno, Farm, e.a., who have had far more experience and patience in this) already describe this same angle, I leave this kinda strategic choice and move into Support. Meanwhile, we can see the future. There's a pattern. -DePiep (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support(edit conflict), with regret... demanding punishment is the wrong direction: all that is being requested is simple compliance with Misplaced Pages policies. Ideally an editor (admin) would police their own edits (bots included), especially if previously notified of an issue by others. For several years I have experienced a sinking feeling seeing SmackBot walk across my watchlist, and have generally had to clear up after it: that takes time that could have better been spent on tackling vandalism or working on article content (I presume the situation is similar for others...). To just revert/clear-up is not constructive, so I have reported the damage or issue to Rich's talk page, with diffs. I report bugs so that they can be fixed, not silently ignored as one-offs or super-efficiently archived in record time without response. The archiving is having to being done because there are so many open issues on Rich's talk page at any one time—this highlights the core issue, (1) unsatisfactory communication arguing the merits of the bug reports (rather than just fixing then), thus keeping the discussions open, (2) lack of oversight on the edits being made in the first place, (2a) -at an unmanageable speed, (2b) -of a quality, or nature, that is not desired by the rest of Misplaced Pages. The last time Rich was brought to ANI, the immediate concern was not being able to respond because of being blocked. After some hinting, Rich adjusted his unblocked request to be on the basis that he wished to respond to ANI (this ability was granted within the hour, but then not used—instead once unblocked, the automated edits started again), and still no replies on ANI until heavy prompting. Here, at ANI again, and we suddenly have a conveniently-timed Wikibreak... If a user is unable, or unwilling to police, justify, or accept their own actions, then the Betacommand-style restrictions are probably going to have to be the next step. I hope the door will remain open for Rich to reform and become a functioning part of Misplaced Pages again, but that further infractions will be met by restrictions at the next notch up and not merely slide back down to zero everytime as we have seen to-date. My own analysis of batches of 50–100 edits at various times has shown a consistent 90–95% success rate (5–10% failure rate) which equates to 10,000s of damaging edits forced through for the sake of what are seemingly mostly white-space changes, template renames by the back door, or hidden-category fixes (aka all diff noise). For those who are worried about the potential missed jobs that SmackBot and semi-automated-Rich do, I suspect that it will be possible to cover for these (and more) purely through the time-savings generated from not reviewing/clearing up the current edits, or going round in (the same) circles on User_talk:Rich. —Sladen (talk) 09:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, as far as I see the threads, nothing is breaking Misplaced Pages, it is just that either edits are unnecessary, could be done even better, or are not liked by some/many. Suggestion: maybe Rich can check the changes to the page just before saving them (it should be easy to check whether the page only contains changes of capitalisations, or whether there are double tags left, or whether the edit is practically going to be a nul-edit (I must say, I don't think I saw such suggestions, yet!). --Dirk Beetstra 10:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Rich is perfectly aware that he should be checking edits before saving them, rather than using automated tools to make edits without approval, or not paying due care and attention when using semi-automated tools. He's been warned multiple times by me, other editors, and other members of BAG, that he's violating the bot policy by not checking the edits, and violating AWB Rules of Use by using it without checking his edits properly. The problem persists. - Kingpin (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Then enforce that, as I say, 'either edits are unnecessary, could be done even better, or are not liked by some/many', and that is IMHO not solved by restricting the use of bots. If an editor is editing a BLP, entering the correct 'the person was born in 2010' (while the info is already in the infobox), then we block that editor, because he should have entered 'the person was born in May 2010', or, even better, 'the person was born on the 31st of May, 2010' (or should it be 'the person was born on May 31, 2010', or 'the person was born on the thirtyfirst of the fifth month of two thousand and ten'; whatever is added: BANHAMMER this editor, I say, he is entering a date in a format which is certainly going to be unliked by some, which is unnecessary as it is in the infobox, and it could in all forms be done even better!). Can I have diffs of actually BROKEN pages after Rich/his bots edited (and it better be diffs (pl), and a significant number in relation to the number of edits which did not break anything). --Dirk Beetstra 10:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
      • User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2010Sep#Talk:Eurostar, User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2010Oct#SmackBot rides again, User_talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2010Oct#Smackbot comma—my recent reports; searching User:Rich Farmbrough/Talk Archive Index for "SmackBot" and the dozens of pages linked from it should give some idea of scale. —Sladen (talk) 11:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Searching for the word "save" on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough may give some insight into what is happening... default AWB has safeguards to ensure editors do review, and manually click save. —Sladen (talk) 10:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Noting, that Rich can do these edits as well by hand, entering a capital first letter for a template, or mistakenly add a closing and opening tag .. I think that this restriction is NOT solving the problem. If anything, the bots ánd Rich should be blocked indef for this behaviour. --Dirk Beetstra 10:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • To Slaten: No: AWB does NOT have safeguards to ensure editors do review. You can still just press SAVE and ignore. --Dirk Beetstra 10:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Yup, and given that this is contrary to WP:AWB#Rules of use and AWB's warning messages, what do you suggest? —Sladen (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • If a user breaks pages continuously and does not respond to warnings, you block the user; If a user is, on his account, breaking pages using AWB, then you block the user. Same for a bot, if it continuously breaks things, you block the bot. So, what got broken (all I see are capitalisations which are unnecessary, some unnecessary close-open tags which indeed could have been removed, and some cases where an already 'broken' page gets 'fixed' into another 'broken' form)? --Dirk Beetstra 12:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • (I now see that the close-open-tag-bug was also a case of a template that was broken before the bot attempted a repair .. ). --Dirk Beetstra 12:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

      Example of RF edit disrupting a template. See current Template:BLP unsourced/sandbox: before/after template code together. (After this edit, in case sandbox changed). The error does not show in template-space (nor WP:SANDBOX). Now take care, know what you do or drop it. To show the error: 1. Open (don't save!) a new page in mainspace for sandbox, 2. Copy-paste the /sandbox code, 3. Preview & check what you see. 4. Then, cancel the edit (never save it). -DePiep (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

      • Thanks, DePiep. Now, this section starts with "Proposed: Rich Farmborough is indefinitely restricted: - from using AWB or any other mass-editing tool; - from running bots of any sort; - from making bot-like edits; - from making more than four edits per minute;", and hence, I am, logically, asking for edits with a form of mass-editing by Rich Farmbrough (can someone please fix the title of this section) which break pages. The edit that you cite, is preceded by this, and followed by this. This has nothing to do with his bot or otherwise automated edits. Last time I checked, Rich Farmbrough is a human (a type of creature known to err) running scripts and bots (which we suppose not to make errors, but which may propagate errors which are there already; as we said, the editor before the bot may have been human, and those are .. known to err and to make mistakes in formatting). This example edit that you present could looks like a human error. Now .. do we have a significant number of bot/automated-edits which result in broken pages, or are all the automated edits merely things which are maybe unnecessary (capitalisation of templates, certain combinations of close-open-tags, whitespace), which people don't like (again, capitalisation of templates, changes of whitespace), or which reform a broken format into another broken format ('(Sentence).(ref), (sentence starting with a lowercase)' -> '(Sentence).,(ref) (sentence starting with a lowercase)'; note, this is still not broken, both versions are however wrong, and that edit included 10 other things, even when previewed it could easily be missed, and what are we talking about, one comma!)?
      • So, I think the result of this thread is, that we ban a useful user and admin from editing using automated scripts, bots, etc., because he does not break Misplaced Pages with them. However, as was shown here, he does break them non-automated, but that is not what this thread is about. I am at a loss. --Dirk Beetstra 14:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
        • @Dirk Beetstra: Here is an example of a broken edit that occurred during an unapproved bot job to change the syntax of the portal template. This is an error (the bare subst tags) that I have pointed out to R.F. numerous times, but which somehow has never been fixed. Here the bot added a references section to a disambig page that didn't have footnotes to begin with. Here is an example of an error from September 2010 that was first reported in December 2009 but not (apparently) fixed. You can find many more examples of broken bot edits by looking at the history of R.F.'s talk page and SmackBot's talk page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
        • In his last trial run for Smackbot (but as far as I know, also before this trial run), he adds defaultsorts for articles that don't need a defaultsort, for multi-word articles where the second word is not capitalized. As I said there: "The effect of your defaultsort additions for different capitalisations is that in e.g. Category:Legal term stubs, Judicial misconduct is now incorrectly placed before "Judicial assistance", "Judicial deference", "Judicial economy", "Judicial estoppel" and "Judicial immunity". However, if you would add such a defaultsort to all these pages, the end result would again be the correct situation we had before all your changes, but with the added disadvantage of an incorrect defaultsort if any of these pages ever get moved. So: why?". So one thing his latest bot run breaks is the correct sort order of articles in categories, for no apparent benefit. Fram (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Also @Dirk Beetstra (edit conflict) It really depends on what you mean by "break". I think you mean to make the page look completely wrong, so that no one - not even Rich - could say that the page should be like that. I will just note that I don't think we should only be looking at these kinds of edits. There's not much evidence of this, there is however some, for example his tagging of the main page, which is a case I feel highlights more than one of the problems people have with Rich: first he runs a unapproved bot against botpol; he messes up badly because he's not actually checking the edits; doesn't discuss it well when it is brought up with him (although in this case of course he did revert his edit) again in violation of the botpol. This is of course just one example, but if you would please take the time to actually read through the other threads listed at /Rich_Farmbrough you would see there are many more problems. For example I quickly found this edit by looking through that page for about 30 seconds. Then of course, there are other problems, part of the proposal is no more AWB, this seems to make sense since Rich has managed to break every single one of AWB's Rules of Use. The rest of the proposal is more focused on bots (although AWB can be used to run bots, so they're similar concerns). As mentioned Rich has managed to violate multiple parts of the bot policy, so it would also seem to make sense (to me) to prevent him from using bots. He doesn't need to have actually "broken pages" to cause problems, there are many more ways that bot operators can disrupt then breaking pages. Some examples of how he's caused problems/violated botpol, not necessarily breaking pages: Consumed resources unnecessarily (relevant section of botpol); used bots for making edits against consensus just because he feels it's a good task (ditto before); failed to provide informative edit summaries (ditto before, example: recently made a series of high speed edits without edit summaries; removed "using AWB" from summary"; recently made a series of edits with a typo in the edit summary which caused confusion); similar to this is the problem of communication, too often he doesn't address issues fully, or at all (relevant section of botpol); making edits which only move around whitespace.change capitalisation etc. (relevant section of botpol; also failing to discuss bots before running (e.g. not getting approval) (relevant section of botpol); running admin bots on his own account, which has caused even more disruption then would be possible on a separate bot account (relevant section of botpol , and this, more relevant to running it on his own account). He's been warned again and again about these issues.. I think it's about time to just put a stop to them. I think all of the restrictions will hep put a stop to some of the things I've mentioned here. - Kingpin (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
        • (e/c)And of course, there was the tagging of the main page as uncategorized, which he didn't revert for more than 10 minutes. Not to mention the damage to community health that results when one user is allowed to repeatedly circumvent consensus and policy. If a new user came and made the exact same edits, he'd likely be blocked without discussion for running an unapproved bot. Mr.Z-man 14:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks Carl and Fram. These are properly errors or edits which indeed break things. Many however long time ago, and scattered through time, and mainly 'single' incidents amongst many good edits:
    • The first one is done using AWB on his main account; those are not necessarily 'unapproved bot edits', it is followed IMMEDIATELY by a non-automated edit (so I doubt even if it was an unsupervised edit, he might have genuinely have missed it - the result looked good, maybe he did not check the diff (yeah, he should)).
    • Second, single mistake in a long, long list of edits without further problems. Note, that here the bot does do it correctly just before the noted edit .. is this really a bot error, or a Misplaced Pages glitch; yes, Misplaced Pages has glitches, it is the only way I can explain this between all edits ending up in the correct namespace on two different wikis ..).
    • Third, the most recent one did get solved by Rich himself half a day later.
    • Four and five don't have diffs, but there it seems indeed that there was something wrong. Note, the bot was blocked and I presume not unblocked before it was really stopped - we don't try people twice.
    • Fram's example: did it go on after trial? After all, trials are to test things and see if things go wrong so they can be fixed.
  • Many more examples, OK, sure, if there are new tasks, then new errors/mistakes come up. Questions: Are errors generally fixed, and new ones come up? Are there long, long lists of breaking edits, or are they, as most mentioned here, single mistakes in long lists of edits. Does he not even respond and just continue, or does he try to explain that certain things are uncatchable and are merely due to mistakes already there, or which don't actually break a page. I do recall that he was actually fixing a problem he generated lately. --Dirk Beetstra 15:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: edit was meant to be just after Fram. I should have added, and I can add that still after Kingpin's comment, that none of those are presented here, it is just proposed that he stops editing using automated scripts. This section however is a subsection of something else, abuse of admin tools. I guess I should read up... --Dirk Beetstra 15:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • It's not only "wrong"/article-breaking edits that editors have an issue with, but also trivial and inconsequential changes, such as changing the first-letter casing of templates, replacing templates with template redirects, replacing template redirects with templates, changing the ==spacing around headers==, and similar sundry changes. These edits bloat up diffs making it difficult to see what was actually done, and represent a personal preference that does not have consensus or approval; and when done on their own represent a violation of AWB's rules of use. His response to queries about these issues has been sub-optimal in the past. I really wish Rich would just remove these unnecessary rules from his ruleset and none of this would be necessary. –xeno 15:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I know, Xeno, and I see the point, but I think it goes far to present mainly that type of edits, although they are annoying (and I am all for convincing Rich to stop doing that), to actually ban an editor from doing automated edits at all (which does not stop the problem, as he also does it by hand). I am more for the proposal below (by User:Bsherr), and the use of blocks when things continue. --Dirk Beetstra 15:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
        • BAG's authority really only extends as far as users recognize it. There's also a bit of a catch-22 there: in that a BAG member will dispute certain edits/request they stop, and as a result, some users will consider them 'involved' for the purposes of issuing blocks. See also some of the comments after Rich's recent block. I realize that this proposal will effectively stop the majority of R.F.'s editing (and also leave us without a bot to date cleanup tags) so perhaps someone should put forth an alternative? –xeno 15:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Beetstra. And your point, by now. is? -DePiep (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't see why the BAG can't do this in a rational way, instead of an arbitrary and blanket restriction like this. It would be far better to channel Rich's enthusiasm and talent, under the step-by-step guidance of the BAG, rather than effectively end his most significant contribution to Misplaced Pages. If there's something proposed that the BAG can't handle, then I'm all ears. --Bsherr (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • How is BAG supposed to do anything? BAG's remit is the approval of bots. He's running bot tasks on his main account, and running tasks without approval, including some that violate the bot policy. He's circumventing BAG, its now a general administrative issue. Mr.Z-man 18:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment I admit I'm not 100% familiar with how bots work but if one of the concerns is the loss of useful bots, couldn't RF be restricted to approved bots with none of the other stuff allowed on his main account? Obviously the bots be restricted to what they are approved for. Now it's possible RF may misuse the approved bots and we will have to block the bots anyway but it seems to me that's something we can cross if it comes to it, and hopefully it won't. RF would be entitled to ask for more bots and the BAG will consider those requests as normal. Actually I admit I'm not sure why RF is being prevented from running all bots if the concern is his misuse of bots on his main account not the misuse of his approved bots which are said to do good work. I do agree however we shouldn't allow ourselves to effectively be held hostage because of some useful bots, even if RF isn't trying to do that (in fact it's been a concern of mine for a while) Nil Einne (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
      • That seems entirely practical (a rare quality in this discussion, I think). Though I share Ruslik's confusion below as to what constitutes bot-like edits. --Bsherr (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
        • This issue has been going on for around two years. Rich has always been restricted to only running approved bots. He continues to run unapproved bots. Continues to run even his approved bot against bot policy. He's been warned about it before. Been told to stop before. I think your method has already been tried, and has failed. Besides, what you're suggesting is only what the bot policy already requires, so how telling him to do that is going to make much difference I don't really see, it'll just be exactly the same situation - Kingpin (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
          • I obviously don't really know anything about the history here but if the problem is RF is already ignoring clear cut policy i.e. don't run bots without approval, and only run your approved bots in accordance to approval then I'm not sure if there's need to this or not in the current form. He can and should be blocked if necessary for ignoring policy on not running unapproved bots until he hopefully understands it's not acceptable. No need for long discussions since there's already consensus running bots without approval is a blockable offense and RF already knows of that policy. The only issue here might be what constitutes a bot, and I can understand the requirements for specifying that RF can't run automated tools that are considered bot like or more then 4 edits a minute if that's necessary. In terms of the approved bots things, isn't there also already a process for dealing with this from the BAG? When his bots aren't doing what they are approved for they can be blocked. Ultimately if he continues the approval will be withdrawn. If he's been shown to not be trusted with bots, I would presume he wouldn't be granted any more approvals or at least he will be under a very short leash. To put it all a different way, we may very well be at the stage where we have to ban him from running bots, I'm just not sure why or how we got here in this way since it seemed this should have been dealt with without needing any proposals specific to RF (except perhaps for the ones on bot like edits). If the BAG isn't properly dealing with people who are misusing their approved bots or if we aren't dealing with people who are using bots without approval properly then perhaps we have more fundamental issues that need to be resolved? Nil Einne (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support - per this. Too many serious concerns over a long period of time, with no change in sight. Offliner (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Many of the edits that his bot make are extremely useful with the exception of some unnecessary ones which I can live with. We shouldnt be restricting a user fro doing so many edits that they fill watchlists. I rather enjoy it when my watchlist fills up because that mean the articles I care about are getting love. The more love they get the better they are. This is a very expereienced user with a skillset that is extremely rare. Especially with so many of the other bots and their operators being restricted (some for much more sever infractions than a few unnecessary edits) we are running out of people with the skillset to be able to run a bot. --Kumioko (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I do not understand how banning approved bots can help in preventing Rich Farmbrough from running unapproved bots. In addition, what is a bot like edit? I also do not understand how you are going to prove that somebody uses AWB or any other mass-editing tool? I also want to note that this thread began because Rich Farmbrough misused the admin tools by making controversial edits to protected pages. And what solutions is proposed here? Banning him from running approved bots? So, if someone misuses tools, the best remedy is banning that person from running bots? Ruslik_Zero 19:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • That's dead on, Ruslik. That's exactly the concern. --Bsherr (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) There is a general problem even with the approved bots in that Rich isn't operating them with-in the bot policy (e.g. not communicating well with others is against the bot policy). So in some ways nearly all the so called approved-bots Rich runs are actually not approved by policy. In ambiguous cases the Bot Approvals Group often decide if a edit is semi-automated, automated or manual, see the bot policy. But in general it's pretty easy to tell, for example simply the same kind of edit being made to multiple pages over and over again. However, this could maybe use more clarification. It'll be clear if Rich is making these kinds of edits, and the AWB edits are the same. It's these kinds of edits which are the problem anyway, so although maybe he could try and get around it and use AWB, it would be pointless, and wouldn't matter.. I don't think you should oppose this simply because of what the thread started with, this is more relevant then you might think. It relates to Rich using bots to implement his preferred template names, content etc. Just as he used the admin tools to change the unsourced template to his preference. - Kingpin (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support with a caveat or two. The first would be to exempt currently approved bots that opperating within the policy. And possibly those that Rich can and does bring to the benchmark. The second would be to ammend the "from running bots of any sort" to:
  • from running bots of any sort aside from those falling within the above list.
  • from altering the purpose of the bots in the above list.
  • from requesting permision for a new bot or to alter one of the bots in the above list.
  • from requesting others alter one of the bots in the above list.

That may allow for some of the "good works" to continue while underscoring the unacceptable behaviour.

- J Greb (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• The trouble is telling how this would be different from the present. Rich currently (same as everyone else) is only allowed to run approved bots within the policy(s). —Sladen (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• To be honest, I'm looking at the hew and cry about the loss of SmackBot. IF that one is running within policy, it bay be worth exempting. Beyond that... I guess the question is, if this was any other editor, wold it have been allowed to get to this point? Or would the 'bots have been taken away from them without this much noise and hand wringing? If this is a special case where a community ban is the only way to correct the behaiviour and/or limit the damage, then the criteria needs to be crystal clear, even if it replicates standing bot operation policy. - J Greb (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• I would exempt bots currently approved to continue acting as they do now. If this is too broad, can modify it to simply allow certain named bots to perform certain tasks as they do now. This would transform a "hammer" approach into a "scalpel" approach. --Philosopher  22:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• If he's not using the bots according to how they've been approved, why cannot the BAG just revoke the approvals and ask him to reapply, as was done with SmackBot just recently? Why prevent him from continuing to use them both properly and improperly? --Bsherr (talk) 22:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support per most of the above. I would suggest my modification of J Greb's caveat above and propose that emptying widely-used categories be considered a "bot-like" edit. Normally, I wouldn't consider it as such, but that was part of the immediate offense here, which allowed him to try to justify deleting the "empty" categories. --Philosopher  22:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• Halfway tally: Again, a pointed ANI request is drowning in a "please explain again" multiline. Our best editors, with more right of speak than I have, have had to spend their money. And not a decisive admin in sight. Let me be clear: The way RF edits, is not the way we want it. Now you from here go, grand admins. -DePiep (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC) (not an admin)
  • Than what would you propose? I see three alternative possibilities - a short-term block, removal of admin tools, or a ban. None of them strikes me as a great solution at the moment. --Philosopher  22:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I do not propose a single decision. The thread now is tentatively researching sideways. I think there is enough material for an admin to step ahead in main line. That is: to conclude. -DePiep (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC) (signing completely)
• Oppose at this time. For one thing, the changes that started this discussion were made by hand, and somehow banning automated edits is a rational, relevant, and proportional response that will prevent him from making the same non-automated mistake in the future? I don't get it. It's like a seeing a little kid slowly walk into a busy street, so you punish him by telling him that now he's not allowed to run at full speed inside the house. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

  RF is not a kid. It's about: why do they behave like such. Any suggestion preventing? -DePiep (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• comment At this point I have to ask, why is he still an administrator? If he can't be trusted to edit properly there is absolutely no reason for him to have the tools. By his own admission he's basically gone from one screw up 3 weeks ago to this one even after a break.--Crossmr (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling pushing POV/COI

Judith Reisman has been a highly contentious BLP page for a while. It came to my attention when the apparent subject vehemently objected to it's content . In short, her work is about discrediting the work of Alfred Kinsey. I don't really have an opinion on any of this and came into this mess as an uninvolved admin who informed the editor how to contact the foundation, etc. I semi-protected the article and added it to my watchlist.

I recently saw some edits there which appeared to me to highly POV, some off-topic and some not supported by the sources; I reverted them. When I went to the talk page intending to discuss my removal of the content, I found a dumping of off-topic, highly POV, anti-kinsey articles by LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk · contribs). I removed the off-topic material from the talk page and left LegitimateAndEvenCompelling a note about it being inappropriate. In doing so, I discovered that on User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, the user lists his website which is used as a platform for Judith Reisman who published this article on his/her website.

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling has objected to my removal of the inappropriate material and restored it.

It's clear that I've become involved here, but it's also clear to me that LegitimateAndEvenCompelling has a very strong COI and an agenda that he/she is using Misplaced Pages to further. I'd like additional admin eyes on this please and I'd like to step away from it. Toddst1 (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup, none of those links look at all relevant to a biography about Reisman, the first two for certain. The aim is probably to disparage Kinsey --Errant 16:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)

Are you saying that the editor Legitimate etc... is Judith Reisman? Not having looked into the content, but a lot of Kinsey's research has been discredited (at least in the eyes of the academic mainstream). If these are people with an academic interest in the subject, that isn't neccessarily a bad thing. If the worst offense the editor made was putting a bunch of links you think are irrelevant on a talk page, doesn't seem much of an issue.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The editor in question appears to be a crusader, and that usually spells trouble. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That's what I attempted to say. Thanks Bugs. Toddst1 (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

My comments appear on my Talk page in response to Toddst1. Please read them as if fully included here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

"If the worst offense the editor made was putting a bunch of links you think are irrelevant on a talk page, doesn't seem much of an issue." Exactly. Thanks, Bali ultimate --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the issue is that you are editing with a COI and an agenda. Toddst1 (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to see some - any - evidence of that, Toddst1. Currently we have some dubious links on a talk page - not highly prolematic. I've checked only the most recent LAEC post to the article page, and it looks fine. If no evidence then storm, teacup. If evidence, then whole new ball game. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Note the POV the editor is trying to push here, and note the stuff he cites on his own website. Clearly the editor is a crusader. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, having looked at it he's a crusader. Misplaced Pages is filled with roving organized gangs of crusaders that harm articles to a much greater extent, however. If it's really bad, make a list of the 5 or 10 worst edits. If they stink, then something might be done (this wouldn't be a case where there will be a bunch of admin protectors for the particular crusade, so you might get someone. Separate the week from the herd and all that).Bali ultimate (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok:

1. bandwagon:
2. supression of criticism:
3. additional dumping of anti-kinsey material: with important quote: "I'll bet it corroborates at least some of the information on this Wiki or that should be on this Wiki."

That took about 2 minutes. Toddst1 (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh my. Here's the actual quote: "I have not yet read these articles. Based on the titles, it appears a Kinsey victim is speaking out. If so, I'll bet it corroborates at least some of the information on this Wiki or that should be on this Wiki." Toddst1 left out the "If so" and the context. That is not fair. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Remembering the injunction at the top of this page "Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting.", it's just a shame the exercise was not done at 15:55. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

My COI is about libraries as explained on my User page, not Kinsey. Reisman said something about libraries, but I promote none of her work regarding Kinsey, neither do I read it. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Those links are normal editing and most are years old anyway. I'll bet if you go back over the years anyone would make similar edits. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Mmmm. One of those - - looked a little worrying to me. But it was a year-old edit and might (or might not) on further investigation check out. Neither it nor posting whatever on the talk page in the last few days. Where's the casus belli for this AN/I listing? What resolution is being sought? Still looks a bit tea-cup-ish for this venue. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not talking about individual edits. Perhaps you can see a bigger picture from each of these edits. Toddst1 (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Toddst1, you seriously misquoted me above to give the spin you wanted people to think. Please consider taking under advisement the comments of those who have commented substantively above. Please consider withdrawing your AN/I request. Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I can be persuaded that LAEC has a POV, but not that there's any concern about it being pushed sufficient to be of interest in this venue. You asked for another opinion. You have that opinion. By all means ask for more opinions. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The crusade continues removing anything that may be perceived as diminishing her qualification. Toddst1 (talk) 04:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Removing a paragraph about her writing a Captain Kangaroo song from a 3 paragraph section is not a "crusade". It's good editing. Take a look at the underlying reference. It mentions the Kangaroo thing as an aside. For it to be cherry picked then placed so prominently on a Wiki page despite WP:UNDUE is possible POV. For it's removal to be called a "crusade" is definitely POV. And the complainer is the one who substantially misquoted me above to make a point.

Besides, writing songs or jingles is nothing to sneeze at. Song writing is not "perceived as diminishing her qualification", so the whole premise of Toddst1's claim is false. I have to wonder how he is able to read my mind to determine my perceptions. I suspect it is his own projection, his own demeaning of song writers or of children's television programming.

I wish Toddst1 would just edit instead of using procedural means or collapse templates to prevent editors from contributing. This new accusation by Toddst1 has nothing to do with his original reason for filing this AN/I. Further, I interpret Toddst1's comments on my Talk page to mean he admits he will not prevail in this AN/I. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

A quick note about that particular edit, it may be a good edit, I have no skin in that game, but a paragraph removal shouldn't be marked WP:MINOR. In isolation, that's nowhere near an ANI issue, of course. But it does need to said that marking content removal as minor in direct contradiction to WP:MINOR is at best going to create unnecessary conflict, not resolve it. --j⚛e decker 20:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have great respect for Baseball's views. But frankly I'm seeing a whole lot of smoke here, without much substance.

I think Bali hit it on the head. Probably most people who edit[REDACTED] have interests, and edit in those areas. That's fine. That's not a conflict of interest. That's not inappropriate POV/COI editing. The term COI is being used in what strikes me as a somewhat overblown manner. The diffs make the point eloquently.

For g-d's sake, we have (and have discussed recently) an editor stating on his user page: "This user supports the right of all individuals and groups to violently resist military aggression and occupation" ... along with the Palestinian flag ... And his edits arguably align with a point of view (though, for obvious reasons, I would not call him a "crusader").

We let that stand. But we're going to jump up and down about this? Really, folks?? Speedy close.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed, articles on military, religious, personal, and obscure subjects tend to bring editors who have strong views and/or are specialists. We can’t be driving away the specialists as some tend to know far more about the subject than 99.9 percent of the rest of us. Without the specialists, most of our articles would be stubs! Accompanying the “expert” or “specialist” is a “human”, which has biases and is prone to errors. The proper way to handle this is to demand citations from most-reliable sources and avoidance of POV-pushing via the undo weight that can come from cherry-picking sources. I suggest a healthy dose of “prove it—let’s see the citation” from both parties on the talk pages of the Judith Reisman and Alfred Kinsey. The best balance with these sort of articles will come when there is a tug-of-war between equally knowledgeable skilled editors, where both refrain from personal attacks and wikilawyering and simply fall back upon Misplaced Pages’s first principles and its rules and guidelines, and both parties demand adherence by the other to them. Greg L (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The editor in question is now edit-warring the Kinsey article to create a single one-sentence paragraph emphasizing this one author named Reisman. Have fun, y'all. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not an edit war. Our edits are perfectly legitimate even if wrong.

Here's the scoop. Saebvn adds Reisman to the Kinsey article. Baseball removes as undue weight. I restore saying a single sentence is not undue in this case. Steven reverts agreeing with Baseball. I revert to add it back in, this time adding a New York article saying "Judith Reisman is the founder of the modern anti-Kinsey movement" which I think, setting aside any bias whatsoever, means JR is worthy of being on the Kinsey page somewhere due to the WP:RS. Baseball reverts saying the New Yorker is known for its humor! I revert saying "Judith Reisman is the founder of the modern anti-Kinsey movement" is not funny.

That is not an edit war. That is an everyday content dispute. However, in the circumstance as must be considered by WP:RS, claims of undue and claims of the RS being sometimes humorous are not valid reasons to keep that simple sentence acknowledging "the founder of the modern anti-Kinsey movement" from being on the Kinsey page.

I have to say I have been patiently editing, supporting each move with Wiki policy, sometimes explicitly, and a string of people continue to act to promote their WP:SOAPBOX, like the effort to use the collapse template that failed, like this AN/I that is failing, like the false claims of an edit war, like the misquoting of me as I pointed out above. I have no and have shown no favoritism in either direction. I have a reliable source that I got from its already having been included in the article. I read that and it says "Judith Reisman is the founder of the modern anti-Kinsey movement". It's in a RS. Someone adds Reisman to the Kinsey page in a single sentence at the end of a long controversy section. Perfect placement. I add the ref to support the material. Someone please point out to me where I am showing POV in any way. I am not. It is in the RS and I just added that RS that was already previously in the article to a single sentence someone else added. I am doing my job as a fellow Wikipedian improving articles. I will continue to do so. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't even "create a single one-sentence paragraph emphasizing this one author named Reisman". Someone else did that. I just added a reference that was already used in the article in the past--indeed that's where I learned of it. So again someone is distorting the record to drive opinion his way. That is mistaken, and possibly dishonest given the circumstances. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I see that yet another editor has removed your one-line paragraph about this Reisman character. You had best cease your edit-warring, and confine your comments to the article talk page and try to get some consensus. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

And when I last checked, an hour or two ago, LAEC has indeed taken it to the talk page, so hopefully this issue will soon be resolved. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I've done the right thing all along. It was not fair what was done to me. Collapse templates, this AN/I, a 3RR warning, the false statements and misquotes made about me, etc. Hopefully what will be resolved soon is that people stop thinking they own Misplaced Pages and can bully others with procedural alternatives to editing.

If I would a newbie, I would have been browbeaten into leaving the Wiki page as a few editors wanted it instead of how it should be. That is not right and not what Misplaced Pages supports. Indeed it appears consensus is building to add JR to the AF page.

Someone above has called for this AN/I to be closed. Please someone second the motion and close it. It is an unfair black cloud on me that was used to keep me from adding content that now appears will be added. So please close this AN/I so it garners no more false claims about my supposed edit warring, etc. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Philip Baird Shearer again

Literally just hours after yesterday’s pledge here by Philip Baird Shearer to “agree not to edit either article Targeted killing and Assassination or their talk pages until the RFC ends (which will be more than a week”, he started this thread on ‘Reliable sources/Noticeboard’ to further his desires. One editor there, in response to PBS’s complaint opined “I agree that material should not be deleted purely and simply because the citation lacks page numbers...” It seems clear that PBS hoped he could induce others to remove material from ‘Targeted killing’ for him. This is tendentious editing in the extreme, he knows better and has been advised multiple times to drop it for a while. Greg L (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

If he is forum shopping, he's taking a very long route. AGF says it is more likely he is pursuing a question about page numbers in references, rather than whether or not the two articles should be merged (iirc it was re-addition of merge tags which provoked yesterday's AN/I outing.) That said, I don't have enough time in my life to read the whole thread, just the top of it. Can you point to any evidence that he has broken his undertaking? --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No, he didn’t break his pledge. AGF no longer applies because he has clearly exhibited that this is a vendetta against the very existence of the article and now wants to cause grief and exact some measure of a *win* at any cost. He has edit warred and bitterly fought with User:Epeefleche (who is the shepherding editor of ‘Targeted killing’) every step of the way. PBS has bitterly argued on Talk:Assassination and at Talk:Targeted killing against the existence of the latter article, edit warred to redirect ‘Targeted killing’ to ‘Assassination’ (effectively making the article disappear from articlespace), started an RfC over merging ‘Targeted killing’ with ‘Assassination’, and slapped tags on the article. This is detailed and documented here on Talk:Targeted killing. Indeed; as you say, it is a very round-about way of going about editing. Of course, now it is clearly very personal with him. So any outcome is a good outcome in that it is more grief for another editor. I was rather surprised by the cleverness of his maneuver and his apparent confidence in doing so. Greg L (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Although I'm more or less aware of the assassination / targeted killing disagreement, you've raised a new issue here. The issue appears to boil down to PBS pursuing doggedly the question of whether page numbers should be included in references, in the context of the two articles. However it is distinct from the question of whether or not targeted killing should exist or be folded into assassination. With the best will in the world, I cannot see that this merits any more than a slightly raised eyebrow. What are you expecting an admin to do? --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Greg L is confused over his timing the section was started at Revision as of 00:23, on 19 October 2010, in response to an impasse at talk:Targeted killing#First sentences at 00:25, 19 October 2010 I paced a link in the relevant section of talk:Targeted killing. Cirt informed me on my talk page at 07:19, 19 October 2010. I hope that now that Greg L has been shown to be confused over the timings that he will withdraw his scurrilous accusation, as I find it upsetting. -- PBS (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The elephant in the room for this whole issue is that one editor has produced a 100k article by themselves on a highly contentious topic. I don't think I'd be able to trust myself to be able to write a neutral article on the subject, and I can't think of any editor who I would trust to do so. I does not surprise me in the least that the result of it has been acrimony. Quantpole (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Bias in the article doesn’t seem to be a theme in the general community consensus in the RfC at Talk:Assassination, Quantpole. I think this is an issue of one editor (PBS). The community consensus is that the ‘Targeted killing’ article is desirable and wanted and PBS has been vociferously disagreeing with that consensus. Greg L (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That RfC is not about bias but about whether it should be a separate article, and even then there are numerous opinions drawing attention to the fact that POV may be a problem, so it's not just PBS. Quantpole (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought we were talking about citations and PBS learning to walk away from a fight he lost over the article existing. Why are you raising the issue of bias in the article? Does that justify PBS’s tendentious and unrelenting behavior? I don’t think so. Not in the least. The only person weighing in there about the article being biased is PBS, who coincidentally enough has railed about the term “targeted killing” as being nothing more than a euphemism by the U.S. government to justify actions PBS finds unwise and disagreeable. Well, the rest of the general consensus at the RfC is that these concerns over right and wrong and whatever the U.S. government is getting away with are beside the point; it is what it is and the new term is now with us and its impact being debated in the U.N. and in the highest legal circles. I shouldn’t have had to write that just now. These issues are settled as a matter of community consensus. If you want to point out that the “elephant in the room” is bias in the article, please go raise the issue on “Talk:Targeted killing” and abide by the community consensus there. This is not the place to be raising that issue as if it justifies the actions of PBS. Greg L (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Umm, I thought you raise the bias question first, Greg. Any possibility we could knock this discussion on the head, since as you admit, PBS hasn't actually done anything to warrant it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Very well. I propose we afford PBS an opportunity to answer my question below. It will either be a variation of “yes”, “no” or “evade.” No matter which, you may mark this thread resolved as far as I am concerned. Thanks. Greg L (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Tagishsimon, it looks like he’s venue shopping for the purpose of just causing grief. If it doesn’t look that way to you, that’s fine. PBS, I’m sorry, I do have the timing confused and you are right to be upset.

Now, let’s get down to the meat and potatoes of the issue. Don’t you think it would be best to just back off and let Epeefleche spend another week working on the article? I’ve created articles in my own userspace so I could get into a form that is barely ready for prime time. In the case of Epeefleche and his wholesale re-do of ‘Targeted killing’, he landed the article with a 149 citations. I’m sure he has a lot of work planned for the article. Do you think you can just leave him and the article alone and drop it for a few weeks in all the venues and forums you know about? Greg L (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No way should we 'back off' an article like this. It needs more attention from people other than the main editor not less. Quantpole (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Greg L as you say you were mistaken then please strike out your ANI request. -- PBS (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That strikes me as evasive and an attempt to divert attention from my above question. Whereas you started the ‘Reliable sources/Noticeboard’ incident before your pledge to back off, you’ve been quite active there after your pledge—still working the ol’ issue. So please answer this directly; it is a simple question: In the case of Epeefleche and his wholesale re-do of ‘Targeted killing’, he landed the article with a 149 citations. I’m sure he has a lot of work planned for the article. Do you think you can just leave him and the article alone and drop it for a few weeks in all the venues and forums you know about? Greg L (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think that's an appropriate question. I do think striking this AN/I thread is. The consensus that the article stays being established, it is more than legitimate to scrutinise the content and raise such questions are need to be raised. Doubtless is PBS oversteps some mark, we'll quickly hear about it here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I have struck and corrected. Greg L (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

And then persisted with a more general harrying of PBS, which is unseemly on the back of an in error AN/I. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not being "evasive" you bought this ANI on a specific issue that you have since admitted was a mistake and you acknowledge that I have the "right to be upset". So please strike out you initial posting to this section. -- PBS (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Very well. I have done so. Now might you make a pledge to drop it in all venues and forums until the RfC concludes? Greg L (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for partially striking out the ANI. Are you aware that you should not change your comments in a thread so that it does not reflect the original contents? Please remove the additional material you have added to the header of this thread and add it to the bottom if you think it relevant to the original ANI. -- PBS (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I have fixed that. The corrected material is now distinct and separately signed. Greg L (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

As it was not part of the initial ANI please remove the wording from the initial statement and add it to the bottom of the ANI so the accusations raised are in chronological order and then I will happily explain my postings to RS/N. I am beginning to wonder if you realize how serious you accusations are. This thread will be archived and I want a clean record of what happened. Changing the header of an ANI in the way you are doing is in my opinion not appropriate behaviour.because if I answer you question to you satisfaction how do I know that you will not alter the heading yet again? -- PBS (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The added material is now distinct and dated so all posts before that are clearly not in response to that part. Of course I know how serious my accusations are; that’s why I’m here. If you would prefer, I will strike the incorrect part, not add the later-dated correction, and re-post below.

My concern is as follows: After the correct order of events were pointed out, I believe there is unnecessary disruption still occurring that needlessly harasses another editor. Philip Baird Shearer continues to use a thread he started at a venue, here at ‘Reliable sources/Noticeboard’ to persist at what would, in effect, be editing by proxy on an article on which he pledged to stay away from until an RfC concluded. One editor there, in response to PBS’s complaint opined “I agree that material should not be deleted purely and simply because the citation lacks page numbers...” This strikes me tendentious editing. Note that after an ANI the previous day, he pledged to avoid editing the ‘Targeted killing’ article until the RfC on its talk page expired in order to reverse a 48-hour-long block for his over-vigorous editing in opposition to the article. I don’t think the spirit of that pledge is met by continuing to pursue the issue in venue where others might edit per his bidding. (, , , ) I ask that PBS pledge to avoid the ‘Targeted killing’ article in all venues and forums until the RfC concludes. I think the rest of the wikipedian community is perfectly capable of addressing the remaining shortcomings of the article on its own. Greg L (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You have still not retracted your initial ANI statement. You have struck thorough you initial accusation, but you have not struck through the two conclusion you drew from that initial mistaken accusation. Please do so and then we can proceed to discuss this new accusation. -- PBS (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

What exact wording are you referring to? Greg L (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The three sentences that follow the one you struck through in the lead paragraph. The last two contain the conclusion you drew from that initial mistaken accusation. -- PBS (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the bad blood that exists between these two editors, the "page numbers" concern is founded on a legitimate concern so initiating disciplinary action isn't really appropriate in my view. This report should be closed with no action taken. Betty Logan (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That’s fine, Betty. Yours is a legitimate take on the matter. But to be clear on the background and the facts, I am coming to the defense of another, very hard-working editor, User:Epeefleche, who has put in an extraordinary amount of effort on the ‘Targeted killing’ article only to be fought at every twist & turn by PBS. The community consensus was not at all with PBS's desires with regard to keeping the article. It strikes me as badgering and I think it is an unfortunate “reward” for Epeefleche’s hard work. My participation in editing the article has been extremely minimal. I just hate to see hard-work be punished so and feel Epeefleche has shown uncommon patience in the face of an editor who is an admin—which is itself intimidating and often results in pretty bold behavior. Greg L (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it appropriate that before it is closed that the header is struck through so it is in the record that the accusation and conclusions drawn from it were false. As to the more recent allegation first we have to establish if it is reasonable for one of two editors involved in a discussion about the format of a citation on an article talk page, having reached an impasse, should ask at RS/N for other opinions. Also I think you will find that the person who is disputing the need for page numbers in citations on the talk page of targeted killing opened the door to further comments by me with with this edit to RS/N. -- PBS (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems you are referring to this still-standing text: One editor there, in response to PBS’s complaint opined “I agree that material should not be deleted purely and simply because the citation lacks page numbers...” It seems clear that PBS hoped he could induce others to remove material from ‘Targeted killing’ for him. This is tendentious editing in the extreme, he knows better and has been advised multiple times to drop it for a while.

If so, no. It stands. The conclusions do not change. You are wikilawyering over a point that does not affect my conclusions. Whether you started your thread at ‘Reliable sources/Noticeboard’ or *merely* continue to persist there with multiple edits after your pledge that reversed your 48-hour block certainly does not affect my concern nor does it change my suggested remedy: that you agree to stay away from ‘Targeted killing’ via all venues. You clearly exhibit resistance to accepting such a challenge. That’s fine; I can’t force you to. I think it would be wise if you heeded that advise. If you want to have a squeaky clean, unblemished record, you might exhibit some squeaky clean, exemplary behavior towards other editors. I’m certainly not seeing that out of you and your refusal so far to indulge in a two-week break from your feud with Epeefleche does nothing to ameliorate my concerns. Greg L (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, the take-away from this previous discussion on the Reliable Sources board is that page numbers are the sine qua non for book references, but that book refs without page numbers should not be removed for that reason alone. Rather, they can be removed if there is reason to suspect that the ref is invalid, such as that the editor who posted the ref refuses to provide page numbers, or cannot do so. Absent reasons to suspect something fishy, they should be left and marked as needing page numbers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Greg L Do you not see that if your initial accusation was false then the conclusions you drew from that initial accusation are false? It may be that you want to present fresh evidence and draw the same conclusions, but the initial conclusions should not be left there.

As you have been active in reverting edits I have made to the templates at the top of targeted killing you are an involved editor, who has made their point of view clear on several different pages. Indeed you have spent far more time in criticising my behaviour than discussing the content of the article. Comments such as "User:Epeefleche (who is the shepherding editor of ‘Targeted killing’)" makes me wonder what term you would use for you own relationship with the article, and how you square "shepherding editor" with the lead into WP:OWN. Also after you posted this message to RSN, I would be interested to know if you have read Misplaced Pages:Sauce for the goose is (not) sauce for the gander. --PBS (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• There is nothing wrong with asking for page numbers for a book citation. There is nothing wrong with asking for an uninvolved opinion at a noticeboard when the editor in question (Epeefleeche), refuses to provide a page number. There is nothing wrong with placing an NPOV or BIAS tag on an article unless clear consensus exists on the article talk page to remove it. Based on this thread and other discussions on this issue, I recommend that GregL be banned from further involvement with the Targeted killing or Assassination articles and from further interaction with PBS. GregL seems to be taking this disagreement far too personally which appears to be clouding his/her judgement and interfering with Misplaced Pages's editorial processes. Cla68 (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I’m not taking it all personally, Cla68. I am simply saying that if PBS got blocked for 48 hours for editwarring on ‘Targeted killing’ and pledged to stay away, that it seems like he is circumventing the spirit by continuing to raise issues on a noticeboard over the article. I have not been active on the talk pages since PBS’s block nor have I been active on the citation noticeboard at all. I’ve been very uninvolved in those articles except to question his continuing conduct here. It seems quite unjust and outright chilling to be banning an editor (me) from places merely by coming here with facts that are documented by differences, corrections where they are pointed out regarding the facts, and a statement of my concern—especially when the editor I am concerned about is an admin. That would look bad indeed. Merely stating that you see no foul from PBS is sensible. Following that up with “shoot the complainant” seems excessive, don’t you think? Greg L (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes editors have to be banned from editing certain articles simply because their current course of action is destabilising the article. It doesn't mean their concerns are not warranted, or that the other editor is faultless, and a temporary article ban gives them the opportunity to pursue a more appropriate course of action. Betty Logan (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Greg L you wrote "I am simply saying that if PBS got blocked for 48 hours for editwarring on ‘Targeted killing’" and your diff to back up that statement is? The term used was "WP:Disruptive editing." is this another case of you "having you facts of"?

Cirt agreed to unblock my account after an interlocutor intervened, I voluntarily said I would not edit the page until the RFC was finished (I had not intended to edit the content of the article until then and it means that the RFC will probably run it full course) as it seemed to me a reasonable offer for me to make, (particularly as Cirt had indicated (s)he would accept a period of only up to the end of the initial block), as it allowed all stakeholders to walk away from the confrontation agreeing to differ but with their honour intact. To further reduced any possible future confrontation, Cirt and I have agreed that that neither of us will block each others account again, or solicit another to do so with communications that are not logged on the Misplaced Pages pages. I think that your summary of the ANI block review and the talk page discussions do not accurately reflect what happened.

This is not the first time that you have made statements about my actions that are not true, (you have acknowledged one in this section, as you did so on the 17 October with "Oh dear; pardon me, PBS. I had my facts a bit off." The problem I have is that if a assume good faith, then it makes you look like a fool "To lose one parent, ... may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness", and as I am loath to think that a fellow editor might be deliberately making such mistakes it leave me in a bit of a quandary. -- PBS (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. The issue with Philip, which was obscured by the fuss over the recent block, is that he has a tendency to revert (or add tags or whatever it is) endlessly to whichever version he wants, no matter the consensus against, and this can go on literally for years. One example is the placement of ref tags. Almost everyone on and off Misplaced Pages places these after punctuation—like this. But we were not able to write this into the MoS or CITE because of Philip, who reverted every effort to do so no matter how strong the consensus. In the end, after years of trying to sort it out, we had to hold a formal RfC, which really was a waste of time. So if any good comes out of this dispute I hope it's that Philip will take that criticism on board—that arguing your position is important up to a point, but it's also important to be able to spot when it crosses into being tendentious. SlimVirgin 03:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

  On the issue of citation placements we had had "formal" RFCs before the most recent one, and previously there was never a consensus for citations only after punctuation, so it had been agreed to compromise. "Almost everyone on and off Misplaced Pages places these after punctuation—like this" I though the old wording "Inline citations are generally placed after any punctuation such as a comma or period," was a summary of that statement -- but that is water under the bridge -- SV's preference, (which SV initially boldly introduced specific placement into the guidelines on 17 May 2006 and has been arguing for its for years (pots and kettles?)) is now going to be imposed on all articles. -- PBS (talk) 05:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• I gave that only as an example, but I hope you take the general point, which is that you engage in an awful lot of protracted reverting, and in arguing for your position long after whatever the issue is has been decided. I'll say no more about it. I just wanted to make the point as (I hope) constructive criticism. SlimVirgin 07:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Not to detract from SlimVirgin's point (because I agree that protracted battles are never delightful), but I do want to point out that PBS is often, though not always of course, correct in these reversions. Fighting battles on[REDACTED] is far from easy when you're up against obdurate editors and POV pushers and PBS does a reasonably fine job in dealing with these editors, IMO. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• I second Slim's comments.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• I third Slim's comments. RegentsPark, you say "PBS is often, though not always of course, correct in these reversions". Perhaps I miss these examples, and I'm willing to accept that he may make justifiable reversions sometimes. But on many occasions when I've seen him on style-guide pages, he's standing arms folded against the tide, steadfastly refusing to engage on the core of the matter. It's difficult behaviour. Tony (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

  My remarks were solely about PBS and issues of content. I know nothing of style, on wiki or off. My apologies for the lack of clarity. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Mass changes at Israeli settlement articles

Chesdovi (talk · contribs) is adding the sentence "The settlement was built in 1972 with good intentions by Israel, who brushed aside the adverse legal opinion of " to numerous articles about Israeli settlements. These edits are unsourced. Given the scope of the user's activity, it appears to be unlikely that the user is unaware of our basic policies and guidelines.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Is this a content dispute? What administrative action are you seeking? Basket of Puppies 00:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • It's not a content dispute. It's a failure to adhere to basic Misplaced Pages policy re: sourcing. A reminder of WP:OR by an admin might be useful as well as a warning to halt the mass changes. Factomancer (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • At the very least, this user needed an ARBPIA notification and warning, which I have just issued.

      If they continue the behavior past the warning, it's definitely a problem.

      (as an aside - how come with this history, nobody had notified them earlier???) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

      • As a party to the original case in 2008, Chesdovi requires no notification. CIreland (talk) 02:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• Sigh again with Chesdovi, this is like the 10th notification this week. Chesdovi should follow our rules and guidelines about sourcing, which we already warned him in the previous post. He should be blocked until he decides to listen to our policies. Secret 01:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I told him in the last report that he had to add his source the first time, not edit war through to the seventh time.Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • The ArbCom remedies don't give any indication that involved parties are exempt from the notification and logging requirement -- yes, it's pedantic, but let's toe the line here. Somebody ought to undo all those edits, on the basis of being unsourced. I'm not going to do it because I don't want to become an involved admin. Looie496 (talk) 04:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I would actually assume that they should know and abide by them if they were an involved party, and had I noticed that earlier I'd have done something slightly different I think.

        However, they seem to have stopped now, and if it remains stopped (for real) I don't see any need to take it any further. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi does not need a ARBPIA notification as he is one of the original Involved parties of the ARBPIA case: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• I was not "involved". I see I was mentioned there, but I did not take part or read any of the ARBPIA at the time. Chesdovi (talk) 12:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • You were, nonetheless, notified of the outcome of the case, including the discretionary sanctions regime, by Rlevse on 19 January 2008: . CIreland (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Thank you so much for pointing that out. I was, however, not involved and did not take any notice of this message, left over 2 years ago. Even so, I did not consider my edits as deserving of the new placement by Georgewilliamherbert. An edit misconstrued by Cs32en has been blown out of all proportion. Chesdovi (talk) 13:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• The editor in question is a propagandist. He will continue to be one, while avoiding "blocks."Bali ultimate (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Go away "Bali" - you views are not wanted here. Stop stalking me. Chesdovi (talk) 12:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This is accusation is false. All this is nonsense. Cs32en, Factomancer, Secret, Looie496 and Elen of the Roads: What do you mean it's unsourced and sources were not provided? SD provided two sources. It was SD who carried out mass changes to 39 pages by adding "Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights are regarded as illegal by the international community." I merely re-worded 16 pages using the line mentioned above to relect the actions taken by Israel in a more NPOV fashion, while using a different formulation in the other 23: "The settlement is considered an obstacle to social development and economic progress by the international community, who also regard its existence as unlawful, although Israel disputes this." Chesdovi (talk) 12:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have removed the large red, bold, lettering style so other editors may not regard you as an idiot. If capitalising is the cyber equivalent of shouting, I am afraid your text choice came over as histrionic gibbering. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC))
• You do yourself a dis-service, Chesdovi, by stating that that was all that you did. Your contributions history for the past day shows so much more. In order to prove your point about things in the Israel-Palestine dispute being called illegal settlements, you also edited 1 2 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 39 articles about places in Cyprus to describe them as illegal settlements too. I have to question the good sense of an editor who not only disrupts Misplaced Pages to prove a point, repeatedly (Judaism and bus stops (AfD discussion)), but decides to do so by jumping with both feet into another long-standing international dispute. The fact that you did this to 39 Cyprus articles, clearly not a coincidental number, speaks volumes. Uncle G (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • You are mistaken Uncle G. The legal edits to the illegal settlements in NC were made before SD added her statement to the 39 Golan pages. So according to your reasoning it is SD who is making a "point". The similar number is a coincidence. Also, while it has been accepted that I was in violation of WP:POINT at J&BS, it was not necessarily to disrupt. I had good faith in that article and that's why I tried so hard to bring it up to standard. It was precisely because of a keep at another similar article (that I did not vote on) that gave me the go ahead to create J&BS. I was not so much making a point, but rather following the example set by the retaining of the other page. J&BS violated no policies and was deleted because people didn’t like it. The comment I made on the talk page which insinuated it was a pointy creation was a swift response to a suspecting editor who did not approve of the subject matter. Chesdovi (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • No, kiddo. It is still clearly you disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove a point, by taking your Israel-Palestine dispute and leaping in to the Cyprus issue with edits there in order to make a point in the original dispute. The fact that you're discussing your Cyprus edits on your talk page with one of the very same disputants that your having an Israel-Palestine dispute with, that you're currently also now listed alongside at the edit warring noticeboard as well, is making the situation abundantly clear. You're in the middle of the third location dispute in the edit history of Rachel's Tomb. You're spilling over the Israel-Palestine dispute with point-making edits to Cyprus articles, a very foolish thing to be doing. And you're now subject to ARBPIA restrictions, set by PhilKnight. Uncle G (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Let us not also forget the incident where Chesdovi removed a well sourced Moshe dayan quote without consensus for its removal at the talkpage, the quote which was about that Israel started and provoked the Six day war: and then after this he cherry picked on sentence taking the entire quote way out of context and put it in huge quotations: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• • Let us not forget indeed. And if you want to discuss the matter even further, please do. Chesdovi (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I propose a twelve-month topic ban under WP:ARBPIA for Chesdovi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The above discussion, and the user's "contributions" to it, should be sufficient justification. Physchim62 (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

There are two users involved in this mass-editing. Can Supreme Deliciousness comment on their ~40 edits in the articles about Israeli settlements (, ,...,)? Is the timing and the content coincidental, or it's a WP:POINT response to Chesdovi's edits in the articles about places in Cyprus? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I have for a very long time wanted to ad that the Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights are illegal in every single GH settlement article, but I have not gotten around to it earlier, I saw Chesdovi reverted my edit at Rachels tomb so I looked at his contributions to see if he reverted more of my edits and I saw his edits at the Cyprus articles and I was reminded that I had planned before to ad the information to the GH settlement articles, so I did. It wasn't to make a "point" as I had planned to ad the information in all settlement articles and I have before added that information to another article about the settlement illegality: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

One of those users provided reliable sources for their edits. See if you cant tell if that might be a difference between the edits. nableezy - 20:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi blocked

I have just blocked Chesdovi for one month, for massively disruptive editing. This simply had to stop, and it was clear that the editor was going to blast forward until blocked. I am open to the block being lifted without consulting me, if Chesdovi can give assurance that the pattern of disruption will cease; however given the sorts of arguments that Chesdovi has been making, admins should be alert for disingenuous responses. Looie496 (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support block, well deserved disruptive editor. Secret 18:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• Good call. PhilKnight (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This is an overreaction in my view. Obviously Chesdovi and I are on different "sides" of a few disputes at the moment, and while I have problems with some of his edits I recognize that he is, more often than not, a good editor. Most people, including those who disagree with Chesdovi when it comes to many things in the ARBPIA topic area, would recognize that the user is an asset in areas of Jewish history as seen in his work on a number of articles on ancient synagogues. I would suggest a scope and time limited topic ban. Something like a restriction on modifying the location of sites in Israel and surrounding countries/territories and no edits on the legality of settlements for 1-2 weeks. A 1 month block is not necessary and deprives Misplaced Pages of an editor who, for all his faults, can be a valuable asset. nableezy - 19:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Nab here, topic ban could be more appropriate. Though Dovi, definitely, needs to treat Misplaced Pages more seriously, so Dovi should see this as warning for future sanctions. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

  I am open to replacing the block with a topic ban, but I am opposed to minutely engineered topic bans. It is important to resolve problems like this is a way that will stick, without having to be repeatedly tweaked, because that wastes large amounts of admin time, and time is the most valuable resource we have. Looie496 (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

He has already received a 1R restriction, over the entire topic area, until January by PhilKnight. This is just piling on.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That was from a different problem. nableezy - 20:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

@Looie; I disagree. Chesdovi's editing has been a problem in a very specific set of articles and in a very specific subject within those articles. If a restriction is needed it is only needed in that area. But whatever, make it a topic ban on the whole of the ARBPIA topic area instead, at least that would allow Chesdovi to continue working on other areas. nableezy - 20:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• This case is similar to Prunesqualer and that user received a slap on the wrist compared to the sanctions issued against Chesdovi. Chesdovi’s last and only block occurred four years ago and he gets slammed with an extremely harsh sanction. A little consistency please.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi is an experienced editor with thousands of edits, let's not get carried away with the comparisons. nableezy - 20:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Can someone explain what happened here? Chesdovi made a very valid point that nobody bothered even considering. It was SupremeDeliciouness that made mass unilateral contentios edit to numerous articles. Chesdovi merely modified the wording. Who initiated all this disruption?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I have not made any contentions changes or initiated any disruption. What does the sources say? What did I ad to the article? So how was it contentious or disruptive? Now look at one of Chesdovis edits: what source says this? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding a hugely disproportionate amount of text about legality to tiny stubs, like you did here to something like 50 articles in one day is yes both contentious and disruptive. A failure to understand that (or admit to that) is deserving of nothing less then a topic ban.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I fail to understand what you just said and I fail to "admit" to have done anything "contentious " or "disruptive".--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly my point.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

So why hasn't any admin topic banned me? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly my point.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I swear, some of the comments made by those who reflexively support an "ally" make it very difficult to voice any support for Chesdovi. Chesdovi did not "merely modify the wording", Chesdovi removed sourced information and in its place, without providing a source, added things that can best be described as utter nonsense. That some users dont like sourced information does not make it "contentious" or "disruptive". nableezy - 21:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Nabeleezy, I would be open to a 1 year restricted topic ban if, conditional on that ban being imposed, you give your word that during that year you will not report Chesdovi for any violation other than breaking the topic ban. Feel free to propose a wording that would allow you to do that. Looie496 (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Im confused. So if Chesdovi makes 10 reverts in 20 minutes on an article not covered by the topic ban, I shouldnt report it? Or if he repeatedly inserts BLP violations, I shouldnt report it? Im not saying that has or will happen, I just dont understand the condition. If yall really want that its fine by me. Ive edited with Chesdovi for a few years now and today was the first time I reported the user for anything. But 1 year is way too long. I was thinking more along the lines of 1 month. nableezy - 21:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Looie496, Are you kidding!? the Chesdovi's last and only block came four years ago and you're ready to give him a one year topic ban? This is beyond unfair.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi's recent behavior was significantly beyond acceptable behavior here, and he didn't slow down enough after the formal ARBPIA warning or after the topic-wide 1RR was imposed. There are only so many times we can say "stop" before we turn the red light on. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Chesdovi had not made any edits after the 1RR was imposed. nableezy - 21:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support length reduction of block as the length is way over the top. Possibly shorten it to 2-3 days, at most. Basket of Puppies 21:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• Let me try to make this clear. Chesdovi has caused a huge amount of disruption over the past few days, and has shown no willingness to cease the disruptive behavior. We need a remedy that will prevent the same sort of disruption in the future. This is not about being fair, it is about preventing disruption. None of the people who are commenting here seem to be willing even to express a belief that he won't do a similar thing next week. So far Chesdovi himself has not said anything at all. A promise from him to cease the combative editing will allow this block to be lifted; the reason the block is long is to make it clear that such a promise is his only option. We admins are not capable of micromanaging the editing process in the I-P domain. There are two many articles and too many combative editors. When we apply sanctions, they are going to be blunt instruments. That may not be ideal, but it's the only way of avoiding a complete breakdown. Looie496 (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Various issues with settlements have been a headache. Nableezy has a couple sanctions because of the issue. If editors are going to play with fire they are going to be burned and that needs to be clear. We have tried centralized discussions. We have tried AE. Nothing has stopped this trainwreck. I do believe the block is a little long but I am happy to see anything that makes it crystal clear that it needs to stop. I think Chesdovi needs to make it known that he understands what he did wrong (if he does believe that). If that is done I hope a reduction is considered but really it is about time that editors realize that such behavior cannot continue.Cptnono (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support block, per Cptnono's comments. Good call, Looie496. The behavior on both sides of the I/P conflict on Misplaced Pages is ridiculous. It's hugely disruptive, and it must stop.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Mass editing at Life cycle assessment

Noticed a lot of editing here, about 99% from new accounts, as they are 'redlinked'. Please see Revision history of Life cycle assessment. Perhaps a school project being run on that article??- 220.101 talk 06:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably a school project. I would inquire and see what school that is and what exactly they are doing so that we are not alarmed in the future as to what is going on. –MuZemike 06:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This Edit summary "For a class grade and to leave room for expansion on this topic of LCA" suggests you are correct, MuZemike. Thank you for you assistance - 220.101 talk 06:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd semi it and direct them to WP:SUP - hopefully the teacher will get the message. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Am I missing something? Why would we semi it? I don't see any assertions of abuse.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

BW, I assume you're under the mistaken impression that some kind of disruption was going on. If I'm wrong - if your first instinct upon seeing a group of new editors trying to improve an article was to suggest a way of preventing them from doing so - then perhaps a refresher on the founding principles of the project is in order. But I'm hopeful that my first guess is correct. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)\

There's no agenda that I can see - i.e. they're not focusing 20-some-odd new editors on ruining the article - so I see no need to semi-protect the article. It's only prohibited meat-puppetry if the new accounts edit with one goal or agenda in mind, or if they're following marching orders from an instructor (i.e. make sure that article says this). I'll watchlist, but the most we should be doing is offering guidance to the new users as necessary. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 13:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I have left a Welcome Template but i am a little concerned at the number SPA that have edited over the last year or so Does any one else think its odd to have so many SPAs created for this article frequently? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It is at least unusual, I haver never seen it before, but the end result seems fine, so , let it be, keep an eye on it as you would any article with out of the ordinary traffic and associated account creation. Off2riorob (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Flo, Ultra, Resident, Off2. These are just the sorts of next-generation wikipedians we should be encouraging, not "protecting" the project from.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Block of TreasuryTag

Earlier today SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs) blocked TreasuryTag (talk · contribs) for a week for "persistent incivility in edit summaries". The diffs given in the block notice aren't entirely convincing IMO and while I think they are meant to be a sample rather than comprehensive if that's the worst SarekOfVulcan can find I wonder if this block is really justified. A week seems like a long time and given two recent questionable blocks by SarekOfVulcan I think this could do with a review. The offending edit summaries are "Meaningless POV crap" (difficult to dispute when you look at what TT was removing), "rm semi-literate peacock material", and "POV/weasel/drivel/unreferenced/vague/one of those)" (over a week old and the worst word used appears to be drivel). Nev1 (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• It's fairly easy to dispute, actually. I'd certainly dispute that it was either meaningless or crap. I understood its meaning without difficulty. It's a Misplaced Pages editor's original thesis, about a piece of incidental music, but it isn't "crap". "crap" is not an accurate descriptor for content that is intended to be factual, but not supported by the world at large. I suggest looking through the edit history of Job description (AfD discussion) to gain some sense of perspective on what actually bad editing looks like. ☺

  And that's what I'd have said to TreasuryTag. Uncle G (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm having dificulty finding the difs where SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs) warned the established user before laying down a 1 week block. If someone could point me in the right direction I'd appreciate it.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • This is directly relevant to the above question.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Got it, so you blocked without warning because you've been in a previous conflict with this user.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Given that this lengthy block was given without discussion almost five hours after TreasuryTag last edited, it is looking at the best punitive, and at the worst vindictive. the wub "?!" 15:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No, definitely preventive. Don't just look at the edit summaries which were the proximate cause for my blocking him, look at edits such as this ("I'm 99% sure that you won't be able to resist actually looking at my response to your slightly drivular and unsubstantiated post above") and this ("full of POV drivel").--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• • • TT's request to SoV to stay off his talk page is something which he himself would have ignored in similar circumstances, see his recent remarks on his own talk page. David Biddulph (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Indeed, I had a similar incident with TT a couple of months ago, when he informed me that I'm not allowed to "ban him" from my user talk page, after asking him to either post civil comments or stay off my page; he also edit-warred to keep his comments on my page afterwards. Since that gives me an obvious COI I'll refrain from discussing the current block, but it may be worth indicating the user's block history as there may well be a longer-term problem. GiftigerWunsch 16:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
        • The block log might be long, but some entries were mistakes (30 April 2008, 3 July 2010, 7 July 2010). Most of the blocks seem related to edit warring and 3RR than civility issues. Nev1 (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• Let's return to the key issue. Can anyone defend this as a good block and within blocking policy?--Cube lurker (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Good or bad, I'd say the block is within policy. The blocked editor was being repeatedly uncivil and policy does allow a block under those circumstances. I'm not a fan of blocking established users without discussing the problem with them first but the exchange on the talk page and the diffs provided above seem to point to an editor operating under some stress and a block may help stop matters from going out of control. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse block. I might not have blocked under the same circumstances, but it appears to be within reasonable admin discretion. If this was a new user, they probably would have been indeffed and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Everyone, even influential and established editors (including admins, at least in theory) need to understand that this persistent lack of civility is not conducive to a collegiate atmosphere. If TT wants to be rude in edit summaries, a block is appropriate to make him aware that his behaviour is unacceptable and prevent further disruption. The Wordsmith 16:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You're claiming a new user would be indeffed in the same situation? Regardless of the edit summaries, those edit were removing unsourced and POV material from articles, therefore improving them. There's no point in throwing out the baby with the bath water. If an admin blocked a new user for the three edits SOV gave in the block notice they wouldn't deserve the tools. If they're really so disruptive (I'm not convinced they are, but never mind) why was TT not asked to tone down the edit summaries before the block? Nev1 (talk) 16:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

There are more than three diffs. Those are just a sample of a long-running pattern. Also, he has been asked to stop repeatedly (example form last June). He knows they're not appropriate. The Wordsmith 16:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• - I can support time served and a note to keep it more polite. TT gets a bit like that and I imagine youthful exuberance is the issue. Off2riorob (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

  That's possible. I notice that TT hasn't filed an unblock request however; I'd suggest that the best thing to do is wait and see if he files one. I see no reason not to unblock now if he recognises that the types of edit summaries he's been using are against WP:CIVIL and agrees to use more civil ones in future, but let's get that recognition first. GiftigerWunsch 16:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I've undone this blatantly inappropriate block. There are only a handful problematic edit summaries, which are several weeks old. In addition, TT had recently told SarekofVulcan "I don't want you to "talk" to me, ever.", which makes it entirely inappropriate for Sarek to block. A warning would have sufficed, and perhaps an admin not WP:INVOLVED would have seen that. Rd232 16:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Can we please stop unblocking while a discussion is ongoing? TT hadn't asked to be unblocked, there was no harm in talking about it first, especially since there are multiple users saying the block was reasonable. The Wordsmith 17:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

mm, fair enough, but I'm about to sign off, and this block was clearly inappropriate in multiple ways. Rd232 17:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• What's this, SarekofVulcan imposing yet another bollocks block? What a surprise. Parrot of Doom 17:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I think we have a policy for situations like this; it involves commenting on contributions, not contributors. GiftigerWunsch 17:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Difficult to do in this case though, as SarekOfVulcan's contributions appear to be largely confined to throwing his weight around by issuing inappropriate blocks. Malleus Fatuorum 17:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • No, the entire thread is about a user and his inappropriate use of the block button. Therefore it's quite appropriate to comment on the individual, who appears to hold others to a higher standard than that he displays himself. Parrot of Doom 18:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Indeed? Care to share any incivility diffs from me? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Bollocks to civility, how about you own up and just admit how stupid it was of you to block Malleus for pointing out John's idiocy? And how about apologising for blocking Giacomo for pointing out the blindingly obvious? I won't hold my breath, because you're apparently above such criticism. Parrot of Doom 21:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I support something being done to TreasuryTag, while it is controversial and there is a thread being discussed regarding whether or not an individual has the "right to ban from their own talk page" I think it is uncivil to ignore such a request and Treasury has consistantly shown that anyone (including recently Giano and ME) who asks him to stay off their talk page gets special attention and he (or she? no offence I really dont know) will get messages anyways. Disregard for common courtesy and his willingness to poke, prod, and escalate for no reason other than to get the last word and throw a knife in shows that Treasury has no respect for those who try to disengage. Regardless if someone else is wrong, so is Treasury in how he continues to refuse to walk away and be the bigger person. Perhaps laying down the "law" and making an example will do some good.Camelbinky (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Funny Malleus, for someone who claimes they retired to keep showing up... and what exactly do YOU do around here? "Review" GA and FA articles? How about writing one. If you are going to comment on Sarek and do a personal attack then you are fair game too. Except you are easier prey. Now here comes your obligatory insult on intelligence. Make me laugh or get bent.Camelbinky (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

When did I claim to have retired? What's funny is how you feel that it's OK for you to make personal commemnts but not anyone you've taken a dislike to, but of course not alone in that, even here in this thread. As for your absurd claim that all I do is "review" GA and FA articles (I note the intentionally insulting quotation marks), well, that simply goes to show how little the facts mean to you. Malleus Fatuorum 17:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Camelblinky, reign it in please, or at least be informed. First, what's the point in poking Malleus? He can show up if he wants-- that we've lost him to content review doesn't mean he's obliged to stay away. Second, "make me laugh or get bent"? You get to insult Malleus that way, knowing that he'd be blocked if he told you to "get bent"? Third, "How about writing one"? Please see WP:WBFAN. Thanks for not insulting those who do write top content, and poking them as well. And by the way, since when is "reviewing" FAs and GAs not a very necessary part of why we're here ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Treasury has no respect and doesnt know when to back off? Given the above comment, perhaps "Camelbinky" could be swapped with "TreasuryTag" in your edit summary. Nev1 (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPA on Camelbinky that was uncalled for. Secret 17:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

@Camelbinky If that is the case then there should be a discussion on ANI or an RFC/U. Not a blindside 1 week block from an aparently involved admin.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That's odd Camelbinky, I don't see your name here. Perhaps you could show me the FAs you've written? Parrot of Doom 18:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• • • • I agree SarekofVulcan should stop blocking established editors without giving them a warning first. Some of them were bad blocks, like Giano's and I think this one because he blocked several hours after he last edited. But some of his blocks, protections, etc are valid like his recent block of ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk · contribs) (who should be indef). Nothing to recall him for. Secret 17:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• I do not believe a block without a warning was warrented at all. This is clearly something that should have been brought to ANI, yes, but the diffs initially cited were definitely not block worthy or even that bad at all. As for the list added in above, why are we discussing diffs from months ago? How is that applicable to now? Silverseren 17:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • (ecx2)Hafta agree with SS, with the exception of 1 or 2, these difs are not that appaulling. I suspect that if you looked through all of my (or just about anybody's) edits, you will find some that are equally "offensive." I would not deem them worthy of blocking without notice and 1 week block seems a little excessive. Furthermore, Sarek should not have been the one to administer such a block. As he and TT apparently have an advisarial relationship, he should have brought the issue to ANI and had somebody else act on his concerns. This is a clear abuse of tools.---Balloonman 17:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I think TreasuryTag would do well to drop "drivel" and "crap" from his vocabulary. "Unsourced" conveys the rationale for the edit just as well as "Unsourced drivel", as does "POV" instead of "POV crap". –xeno 18:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind seeing that as well... but he's not the only one to use less than perfect verbiage. Within Wordsmith's last 15 edits he had the following edit summary rm mountains of crap and replaced with -expand-sect). But in the offenses of incivility, we've seen a lot worse. And again, I would expect to see a series of messages warning TT of his edit summaries before a week long block and then a one day block before going to a week long one... and the block done by somebody without an adversarial relationship.---Balloonman 18:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• • It is applicable in that it shows a pattern of unacceptable behaviour. In order to prevent further disruption to the project, a block may have been necessary. The Wordsmith 17:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That's nonsense on stilts, Wordsmith. No sensible analysis of the diffs you posted suggests a 1 week block without warning was in any way appropriate. Many of them, IMO, are perfectly fine. Together - to me, at least - they show great wit. The impression I come away with, noting the blocking admin's prior antipathy to TT evidenced on TT's talk page, is that this was nothing more than a heavy handed one-in-the-eye for TT. I'd prefer a[REDACTED] that did not have admins like that and did have TT's quirky comments, than the other way around. As for your "more disruption to the project" ... WTF? Is there any evidence of any disruption whatsoever? Catty comments are not spanners in the works. The block was not preventative. It was, merely, and all thing considered, cynical. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• At this point I'm quite sure TT is familiar with the civility policy. There is absolutely no reason to repeatedly warn long time users about the same thing.--Crossmr (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• That's going back about 1000 edits for a handful of rude or rudish remarks. TT incivility may have come up several times as an issue, but Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/TreasuryTag remains a redlink, and it isn't obviously consistent enough or severe enough to justify a block without that. I suggest TT take this as a final warning, and if it comes up as an issue again, do an WP:RFC/U to justify a sanction. Blocks are not supposed to be punitive, but if a long-term, ongoing pattern of behaviour is demonstrated, a superficially punitive block ought to be justifiable as preventative in terms of inducing changes in behaviour. Rd232 17:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Of course, such blocks will only be effective if they aren't swiftly lifted while they are being discussed. –xeno 17:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I also disagree with the quick and consensus-absent unblock, but what's done is done. I trust that the next time this happens, nobody will be willing to unilaterally unblock like that without discussion. The Wordsmith 18:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
      • The unblock was no more precipitate than the block. A unilateral block made on such shaky grounds, with issues of involvement, should expect to be overturned. A block made after community discussion and clearly evidenced problematic behaviour should not. Rd232 19:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • While I respect your point, isn't the greater sin dropping the long block on an established user without any warning or discussion?--Cube lurker (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I probably wouldn't have blocked in this instance, but it doesn't exonerate the root behaviour. TT is clearly passionate about editing and the subject matter, he simply needs to be more circumspect in his edit summaries. –xeno 18:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You say you wouldn't have blocked, but do you find this block acceptable?--Cube lurker (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

For a number of reasons, I don't (or exceedingly rarely) place civility blocks (blocks of anon users for harassment notwithstanding) - so I'm not really a good person to ask about that. Since Sarek has been asked not to post to the user's talk page, WQA would probably have been a better first step (though I personally avoid that venue as well). –xeno 18:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• The Doctor has fucking companions? When did this happen? Does the BBC know? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Considering that his two current companions are married couple, it is indeed likely that intercourse is taking place. The Wordsmith 18:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Endorse block Established editors know the rules, and do not have to be warned about incivility, they know quite a lot about it, unfortunately, generally from being on the giving end. As I understand it, what with the unfortunate unblock, this is hardening into a new rule: You have to be uncivil twice to get blocked (and even then if you have friends, it may take a lot more than that). And then, tomorrow, you get to start afresh and it will take two episodes of incivility and no handy friends to get blocked (or at least to make it stick longer than it takes to use the restroom and get a breath of fresh air). I think that some of the recent unblocks have shown, it's good to have friends. It's rather a pity that Mattisse didn't have more friends, or at least friends who were willing to give her a hand in spite of being friends—I personally take a conservative view on WP:INVOLVED.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not friends with TreasuryTag (actually I don't really consider any fellow editors "friends", but you know what I mean). As for the wider issues: the block was inappropriate at the time and in the manner it was made. However, if it is demonstrated that the community thinks there is a long-term pattern which continues, then a sanction might be appropriate. The best way to demonstrate this would be WP:RFC/U (as I said above), but ANI might suffice. But it wouldn't retrospectively justify the block. Rd232 18:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

So, bottom line, I see broad agreement with the block here, certainly no consensus against it. Yet a Cowboy admin feels free to unblock without even a request or consultation, which certainly is disrespectful to the blocking admin. I seem to see a limited number of admins who will undo any block for incivility to a content contributor.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

"broad agreement with the block"? I count (admins only) against: Nev1, the wub, Balloonman, myself. moderately against: xeno. Possibly for? Uncle G. For: you, Bwilkins, The Wordsmith. Rd232 18:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

"admins only"? Interesting way to think.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

We're talking about reviewing a block, so it's really not that interesting. I also didn't include non-admins partly to save time in replying, and partly because it's harder to get a handle on the significance of random passersby commenting. However the opposition to the block is clearly stronger among non-admins. Rd232 19:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse block An editor of TT's tenure (and block log) know full well the limits of civility that will be accepted by the project. By this time, warnings are no longer needed. Although the timing of the block is a bit iffy, I can easily AGF in the same way that we have no officialy time limit to reply to questions on article talkpages in order to obtain consensus. If SoV is not allowed to make a block because TT told them to stay away, then eventually every admin would be likewise told to stay away. Block length is consistent with escalating series of blocks to prevent behaviour (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Sarek's involvement with TT goes beyond TT telling him to stay away; it's merely emblematic. Rd232 18:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Previous blocks appear to have been for edit warring and the like; the second 27 Sep block appears an error. There do not appear to have been previous blocks for incivility, which makes 1 week come out of nowhere. Rd232 18:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

(od)May I suggest just letting it go. TT is an established editor and should know what is acceptable and what is not. Perhaps the block will help jog his or her memory and, if it doesn't, this'll bubble up again sometime, somewhere. There are several editors who feel that the block was justified, several who feel it wasn't, so let's just call it a wash. Meanwhile, other things being equal, it is better to have an unblocked editor than it is to have a blocked one. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

procedural note: the discussion was closed at this point by Sarek based on RegentsPark's comment (which I agreed with). thewub undid the closure because it was Sarek's action under discussion. Rd232 22:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse Block TT's persistent and consistent incivility has no room on this project. I applaud SOV for taking a stance against it. Basket of Puppies 21:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse block. Although one week appears too long to me for an editor with no previous incivility blocks, it is important that we enforce in practice what we have agreed on in the abstract: Persistently incivil conduct is not acceptable, by nobody, under any circumstances. Rd232, you should not unblock editors whose block is the subject of an ongoing community discussion unless that discussion results in consensus for an unblock.  Sandstein  22:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • In general, yes. But in this case the wrongness of the block is and was self-evident on a number of grounds. It cannot be justified post hoc by having community discussion after the fact, any more than the police can shoot a suspect and then say "hey, you know what, he was guilty". This sort of behaviour - including the explicit endorsement of it by other admins - is part of the reason some people round here have such low opinions of admins. Rd232 22:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• I think there was enough admin involvement that I think the block wasn't ideal and instead an ANI thread should have been started to get an uninvolved admin involved. That said, I find TT to be as uncivil a person as I've ever had to deal with here and certainly something needs to be done. Hobit (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

proposal

I think part of the problem in these sorts of circumstances may be the practice of not having punitive blocks. For precisely the sort of low-level problem behaviour alleged here, it makes it very hard for any enforcement to happen, unless an individual act is sufficiently egregious to justify a block (but even that may just lead to the behaviour being marginally moderated). So what you end up with time and time again is unilateral action by an admin who gets ticked off (justifiably or not), and then a big debate which turns essentially on whether the community is also, broadly, ticked off. Really, maybe the answer is to explicitly make friends with the idea that in some limited circumstances punitive blocks are allowed. Then issues could be more systematically handled, and for example after community discussion at AN or ANI an injunction issued to stop or at least moderate the behaviour (and not just in the short term). Then, if the injunction is breached, a punitive block might be exactly what's needed to focus the user's mind, and (broadly) help prevent future misbehaviour. However, this would have to be after community discussion to justify it. So, as a test case:

Proposal: TreasuryTag placed on 1 month civility probation. If within the next month TreasuryTag uses dismissive edit summaries with terms such as "crap" and "drivel" or equivalents, he can expect to be blocked for 1 week. Such terms might not get others blocked, but the community feels there is a persistent pattern of incivility which he needs to ameliorate. If a block proves necessary, it should be proposed at ANI with diffs, to confirm community agreement in advance. Rd232 22:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support but I'd expand things to beyond just edit summaries as that covers only a small percent of the issues I've seen. (note: not an admin and certainly involved) Hobit (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as it would be singling TT out for behaviour that is routine amongst many admins and editors (not to mention the subjectivity of the criteria). Until admins start blocking admins for incivility, it is hypocritical to single out non-admins for special treatment. Now, I've just described a lot of admins as hypocrites, anyone fancy blocking me for it? DuncanHill (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Enforcing civility policy has been a long-term problem. This proposal is (AFAIK) a novel approach, which could, possibly, help. You have to start somewhere, and this is potentially an organised enough way of doing things without necessitating a full-blown WP:RFC/U, or else having unilateral blocks (which are always problematic, whether they stick or not). Rd232 00:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Admins in general have made the problem by their hypocritical behaviour. To use TT as a test-case for something that will never be applied to admins looks frankly poor. DuncanHill (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope they dont because it fits my two criteria for acceptable "insults"- funny and true.

• OK, let's add edit warring and continuing to do so without discussion. That started with a claimed "merge" which was a redirect without any merging. He also posted to my talk page a large number of times in succession after I asked him not to do so . Is any one of those things blockable? Probably not. But certainly part of an ongoing lack of civility at the least. Hobit (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support Admins should be blocking other admins for incivility, because they dont doesnt mean non-admins get a pass because admins tend to be hypocrites who dont want to punish their own (typical group activity found in our US Senate down to low-level office "politics"). We dont have to make this ONLY about Treasury, but it does have to start with someone. And I'm sure this proposal will bite me in the ass and have it applied to me eventually anyways, but I'm fine with that. I at least learn from my mistakes and respect when someone tells me "hey, leave me alone" or "hey, that was uncivil", I know where the line is. Treasury doesnt respect or understand- hey, someone doesnt want you to talk to them, that does not mean push them farther and be an ass. It's not about how many times he keeps doing it, it's that each time he doesnt admit or comprehend what he did was wrong and apologize or learn from it. It's all someone else's problem and he has a right to keep being an ass. That is the problem.Camelbinky (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Change to 1 year civility patrol and then I will support. Basket of Puppies 23:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I think that's too long; it's potentially unfair (11 months good behaviour, 1 bad edit summary, 1 week block?) and potentially onerous in terms of enforcement. A month, or perhaps three, should be enough to see if the user can improve. If he's not blocked in that time, he's improved enough not to need a longer term sanction. And how the user behaves after the sanction expires would also be relevant for future decision-making. Rd232 00:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Good point. 6 months is good? Basket of Puppies 00:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose This well has been fully poisoned. If you really think there's a long term problem set up a clean RFC/U.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

User:JasonHaddad

I'm not entirely sure what's going on here and I haven't found a single thing that even gives so much as a hint. However, it's clear to me that we've got a serial IP-hopping vandal on the loose.

I first discovered this after reverting vandalism from I dont like you at all (talk · contribs). I left a warning on the talk page and saw that the user was indefblocked shortly thereafter as a sock of JasonHaddad (talk · contribs). However, I found nothing indicating why there would be a link between the two.

I have since discovered three IPs, all resolving to California, with alarmingly similar patterns of vandalism over the last three days.

• 69.110.79.25 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 71.133.175.213 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 69.225.80.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The last one is vandalizing as I write this. The common thread here is the childish posts on the IP talk pages after a warning is given, as well as the vandal's odd penchant for vandalizing Ford E-Series.

This is probably something that needs a few eyes kept on it, it's starting to look like the beginnings of some long-term disruption. --Sable232 (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

as a range block would seem to have to much collateral I have added it to my watchlist and we will just follow WP:RBI The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by JPMcGrath on Gun laws in the United States (by state)

This is an issue that has gone on for months, the most recent events are chronicled at http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#Brady_scorecard.2C_maps:_saga_continues, where there are also links to previous threads on the same topic. The issue was decided by consensus months ago, and suddenly JPMcGrath appears again claiming "There has been no rebuttal; rather obfuscation, obstruction, and dissembling" to his arguments, despite being given links to more than 30,000 words of discussion, as Mudwater demonstrated. He has been warned, has been treated respectfully and politely by both myself and Digiphi, but continues to push this POV. His arguments have not changed, yet he continues to add this content against consensus. At this time his actions merit "disruptive editing", and I'm asking for a topic ban on this. Rapier (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I read through the talk page and had a good look at the article history. It is clear that JPMcGrath is trying to edit against local consensus. His language and approach might be a low level of tendentious editing, but it's mostly a content dispute. I will warn him to cease edit warring at the risk of being blocked. I saw no 3RR violations. Basket of Puppies 00:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

What I am seeing is tedentious editing on both sides of a "no consensus" poll on the talk page.

The response to a "no consensus" is not to go edit war over it on the article itself. It's to go back and try again to find an option that everyone agrees to.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Finding an option that everyone agrees on may not be possible in this case. The discussion has gone on for more than seven months and now exceeds 30,000 words (yes, really). Many of the editors who have participated in the discussion have agreed that adding the Brady Campaign State Scorecard map to this article would violate NPOV by pushing a particular political agenda and by providing a soapbox for an advocacy group. Some have also stated that the map does not accurately assess the restrictiveness of the different states' gun laws. Others have suggested that the map might be appropriate for a different article -- for example, Political arguments of gun politics in the United States, or Brady Campaign, which currently does include the map -- but not this article, which simply describes the gun laws of the 50 states in as neutral and unbiased a manner as possible. At this point somewhat more than half of the editors have agreed on this, with a sizable minority not agreeing and saying that adding the map would be okay. Still others have floated the idea of balancing the map by also including another map that supports an opposing view, but there does not appear to be such a balancing map. Anyway, the article without the maps has achieved a very neutral point of view by simply presenting the facts of the laws, which are the subject of this particular article, without adding opinions of any kind. As I said, many editors have agreed that not adding the map is the best course of action. But editor JPMcGrath has refused to accept this and keeps adding it back. This is indeed contentious editing, as it has the effect of disrupting the article for the apparent purpose of advocating a particular political point of view. Here are links to the various discussions that have already occurred:

• Archived discussions:
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)/Archive 1#2009 Brady Campaign State Scorecard
  • Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 12#Gun laws in the United States (by state)
  • Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive603#User:Niteshift36 disruption at Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)
  • Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Rejected/45#Gun laws in the United States (by state)
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)/Archive 1#Brady and other maps
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)/Archive 2#RfC: Should the Brady map be removed or retained?
• Discussions currently on the article talk page:
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Proposed removal of all maps
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Brady scorecard and other maps, continued
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Brady scorecard, maps: saga continues (i.e. this section)

— Mudwater 00:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

1. x

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards