Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:50, 25 April 2012

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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)

• A request for adminship is open for discussion.
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

User promoting a movement

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• User talk:완젬스 (redirects to User talk:67.77.174.6 -- redirect has since been removed as a result of this discussion)
• User_talk:Gandydancer#A brownie for you!
• Talk:Reactions to Occupy Wall Street#Possible removal of antisemitism paragraph
• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject OWS#The Jew problem on facebook
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Reactions_to_Occupy_Wall_Street&diff=488372101&oldid=488325297

This user is about 6 months old. In that time he has developed a history of pointing out his real-life ties to the Occupy Wall Street movement and furthermore prodding discussions subtly over to addressing how best to preserve its interests, which often toy with the boundaries of using Misplaced Pages inappropriately to promote the movement. He also addresses individuals who appear supportive of the movement on their talk pages to announce his shared allegiance, and attempted to determine my own allegiances by asking me outright.

This latest instance, linked in the diff above, made the most troubling statement yet: that he is attempting to keep content out of the Reactions to Occupy Wall Street article because it would hurt the movement, while describing his use of policy-based arguments as a cover for that vested interest. I replied noting my suspicion that he was actually here to make OWS look bad, as his behavior is so blatantly nefarious that it seems like he wants to create evidence that OWS' representation on Misplaced Pages is heavily COI-influenced.

Whether 완젬스 does seek to create that allusion or if he's actually attempting to use Misplaced Pages to promote the movement (the latter seems doubtful to me), it doesn't seem to matter much. Either way his behavior appears to be of enough concern to address here. I'm proposing a topic ban for this user, and the IP account he apparently identifies with, from editing any OWS-related articles and talk pages, and from discussing OWS-related topics on any other page. Equazcion 20:01, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)

This quote from the diff you provided certainly indicates an agenda being pushed: " It's just this way because of an election year, and after Nov 6th 2012 I will actually be the first person to reinsert the antisemitism stuff because it's inevitably the right thing to do". If it is the right thing to do after 11/6/2012, it is the right thing to do now. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It's been clear to me that 완젬스 is a False flag operative for some time. Hipocrite (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to be undoing that redirect on his talk page, in preparation for what I smell to be a block. —Jeremy v^_^v 20:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I love the smell of blocks in the morning! Sorry obligatory reference. :P I am curious why user preferred a Korean username. User seems to be entirely contributing to very high profile current events (Occupy Wall Street (and related articles), Occupy Oakland, Shooting of Trayvon Martin, Madigan Army Medical Center (correlates with Panjwai shooting spree)). -- A Certain White Cat 20:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm unsure, but the actual reason for the removal is to move that talkpage onto his. He just copy-and-paste moved it there, but I intend to legitimately move it once the speedy tag is serviced. —Jeremy v^_^v 20:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I have been having many headbutts with Equazcion for quite some time. I'm feeling very frustrated and extremely agitated today. It's definitely been a blowup & I feel like Equazcion has pushed my buttons and made me react in such a way that is detrimental to myself. I kindly ask if we can let this de-escalate first? This stuff happened within an hour ago, and I'm already stressing out and feeling like Equazcion is stressing my nerves. I never felt this way due to Misplaced Pages before--it's like hearing bad news over the phone, like you're fired or a family member has been seriously injured. I'm really agitated and I hope we can try WP:Mediation or WP:RFC where I don't feel this much urgency or sense of crisis. The administrator's noticeboard is a very traumatic turn of events, and I am not able to respond well or type well. This really feels hurtful & tortuous. 완젬스 (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Please do not remove other peoples comments. -- A Certain White Cat 20:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that the comment I pointed out and the discussion he started today came before my addressing him -- my statements only came after them in reply. I'm not sure how they could've resulted from me "pushing his buttons". Equazcion 20:51, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I have escalated the issue to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/완젬스. I think this is a more organized campaign that needs a much closer look. -- A Certain White Cat 21:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Good idea -- though a topic ban for this user seems appropriate either way, IMO. Equazcion 21:08, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Guys, please remember that a block is to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, not to punish users. I am very, very sorry for being tilted today. I clearly behaved in a way that was reflective of a poor emotional state. I got infuriated by an off-wiki argument with another facebook user about George Zimmerman crowding out the media coverage. He unfriended me, blocked me, and logged off. I felt so conceited because of the seriousness of how hard it hit me. I smoked a couple cigarettes and I'm feeling better now. I wish to apologize to equazcion and request for this ANI to be transferred to Mediation, dispute resolution, rfc, or a less intensive process. I have full respect for the admins here at Misplaced Pages, and I want those of you to know I don't intend to cause trouble. If I could curl up into my hole and disappear, I would gladly do so. I want to reply but I don't know what to address? Yes, April 20th was a shameful day for me. I got careless, reckless, and cynical. I've come to realize while smoking the cigarettes that what happened to me on facebook wasn't that bad after all, and I should not jeopardize my standing as a welcomed editor (see my talk page & edit history before Apr 20th) nor should I ever take my status here for granted. Editing is a privilege, not a right, and I hope you guys sincerely believe me that I share the same sense of community here. I've been relatively inactive since March (and looking at my own edit history--my edits dropped off right when I participated constructively in the Trayvon Martin article). I'm a very passionate editor and George Zimmerman becoming a free man again today lead to a furious uproar within me about him being free again, and the peaceful solitude I had from April 13th (when he got arrested) until today (when he was bailed out) took a toll on me greater than I could deal with. It's so hard for me to be powerless and watch the news cycle as it happens. For that, I owe Equaczion an apology, and I humbly request from the admins if I can be allowed another venue to deal with this matter. I wish to proceed but it might be seen as a bad faith apology or be seen as preemptive if I do not first share with all of you how I feel about this, and how I beg of it to be resolved. There's no need to block me unless you think I'll re-engage on the occupy article or its talk page. I just want to apologize, log out of Misplaced Pages for the weekend, have another cigarette, take my dog on a walk, and crawl up into a ball and go to sleep, so that when I wake up, I can have closure on this process and await a more subdued process such as WP:DR or WP:M or WP:RFC or any other recommendation you have for me. Everybody has that one day in their Misplaced Pages career that they wish they could take back, and now all I can do is refrain myself from the article voluntarily, give my apologies to equaczion, and deal with the decision that is handed down to me here. I beg for any mercy or compassion because I'm just so distraught, agitated, and powerless. 완젬스 (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This issue is hardly confined to today's events, and the topic ban I'm suggesting is to prevent COI or false flag damage, not to punish. Equazcion 21:30, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Having a bias or COI does not merit what you are recommending. The latter accusations (false flag) are equally baseless as the SPI accusation. Take off your hater-boots and quit kicking a guy when he's down. I've been through enough today and I just want this feeling to go away. 완젬스 (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I've followed the Occupy articles since last fall, particularly the OWS one, and at the time I just thought User:완젬스 was overly eager to support the cause here. He's been warned for months by various editors not to let his pro-OWS views get in the way of contributing, yet he ignores them and seems to have gotten more brazen. Now that I read Equazcion's suspicion about his covert intentions, confirmed by Hipocrite, I have to say in hindsight his posts make more sense in that light. El duderino (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I said Equaczion was "pushing my buttons" to make me defend such an indefensible position. I volunteer on the main OWS facebook page, and I was having a very frustrated day (even calling people in the movement "occutards" which I have never done before today). There are two factions within OWS. I am in the pro-Obama faction, and I am very frustrated at the occupiers who throw around antisemitic wall posts (which I have to constantly monitor and police) and create antisemitic wall posts (which if I or someone doesn't take them down in 15 minutes, they spread like wildfire) (i.e. see here) because the "occutards" are not helping Obama and are only making OWS look antisemitic. (this pic specifically) Basically within OWS there are a handful of people who give everyone a bad name, and don't know the purpose of the movement is to help democratic politicians in the same way that the tea party helped republican politicians. The idiots I have to deal with day-in and day-out on facebook are antisemitic, lazy, self-entitled, sheep. They do as much damage as the Occupy Oakland black-block guys who broke into city hall and destroyed a children's art exhibit. I'm a "starbucks liberal" and want a clean, violence-free, antisemitism-free, stigma-free occupy movement. I have immense frustration due to our bad apples within OWS who moronically post antisemitic wall photos attributed to Occupy Wall Street, and for that reason, I can be both for Occupy Wall Street (such as back in 2011 during our rosy days) and be cynical/jaded in having to deal with the punks who give our movement a bad name with antisemitic artwork. Thanks for the first part of your statement because if I were false-flag, then I would only be cancelling myself out. (i.e. erasing the positive work I did last year by my frustrations today or alternatively, last year was a setup for me to be a "false flag" on a scarce handful of days in 2012). Either way, my explanation today is totally in line with all my "venting posts" earlier today. It started with an argument about OWS competing for media coverage against America's obsession with George Zimmerman, and me chastising people who don't realize when our coverage is diminished, then the media's tendency will be to over-report the negative stuff (like antisemitic artwork) and under-report our May 1st General Strike and the 99% spring. I apologize so much but back in 2011, I was "new" in the facebook leadership hierarchy, and since 2012 I have been promoted due to being Korean, since all the high-ranking online moderators were white males. If you want the simplest explanation--just look to my stress level and my facebook promotion. That is the truth of why I'm more cynical/jaded in 2012 about the occupy movement (because I have to constantly deal with the bad apples who make violent/antisemitic/anarchist comments on FB wall) compared to last year when those people who are overworked, overstressed (like I am today) saw me as a gullible fool who would happily volunteer for the extra drama, extra headaches, and extra stress.

My promotion through the OWS channels in facebook has shed light on why I'd try to recruit someone gullible, starry-eyed, and optimistic about the movement too. They'll do free work if you promote them to sysop--and 4 months later, they become tired, frustrated, and disillusioned. (I'm sure becoming an admin at wikipedia has that same "reality check" 6 months later when you wonder why you wanted to become an admin, ever...) That's the real reason why my attitude has evolved. It isn't some sort of complex, pre-engineered plan to hurt the movement. If I could, I would denigrate the saboteurs within OWS who draw negative attention to our limited prime time media coverage through actions including, but not limited to: drug use, violence, antisemitism, etc... How could these people not know better? It's like the idiots who took picture of a suicide bomber's remains and figured it wouldn't hurt the image of our military here. 완젬스 (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

We're here to discuss your behavior on the wiki. These walls of text describing internal supposed OWS issues really have no bearing on this discussion, and only serve to muddy the water. I'd invite an uninvolved party to consider collapsing them. Equazcion 22:31, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Do you still believe in the assertion of false flag? (because the long argument was to show you an alternative explanation of why my attitude in 2011 is different than 2012--the "promotion" I received in the facebook group directly correlates with the stress level of an admin verses the stress level of a regular person). If you will drop your false-flag accusation (and let us civilly discuss bias/coi then I'd be happy to) but if you accuse me of bias, coi, false-flag, and spi, then you will deservedly receive a lengthy response. You're desperate to nail me with anything--just like I described multiple ways to scuttle a maneuver. You are trying to hang me by 4 different ropes. I have apologized. I have explained myself. Please let us wait for the SPI review to take its course rather than your "hater boots" trying their best to engage in unfriendly jesting. 완젬스 (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

While the user in question certainly has some doubt, Equazcion comments on the talk page of the said reaction to OWS in regards to the removal of the passage is not at all conducive to discussion or constructive either to the issue of the moreval and the comntent. The NPA there of accusing someones stance was exactly what was questioned when the original complainant asked the same question. There is then a followup by the said user which is irrelevant and yet another user who makes a statement that is irrelevant to CONTENT discussions. This is clearly distracting to get consensus on the passage brought for questioning. This would also be more appropriate to the COI boadLihaas (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

After skimming through a bunch of stuff in this users contribs, it's blatantly obvious to me that 완젬스 has a conflict of interest, in that he is not here to build an encyclopedia. 완젬스 is instead here to ensure that the OWS movement is represented in a positive light on Misplaced Pages, and so that the user can receive personal recognition for making that happen, as can be seen by this March 15, 2012 diff. There are other clear indications of the problem on just about all of this user's contributions to date, including some of the statements here in this AN/I thread (or, alternatively, to make OWS look bad, as Equazcion speculates in his opening statement). That being the case, I support a topic ban at the least. (I have a feeling that this person is a sock of someone else, based on some of the comments on their talk page, but this seems worth nailing down regardless... Misplaced Pages shouldn't be a platform for advocacy, after all).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, euphemisms about stress and explaining your ties to a subject do not help you in this case. We only have an interest in seeing that articles remain neutral, without an agenda threatening the integrity of the pages. Explaining your connection to the subject matter and not showing an indication for easing up on your rhetoric concerning these pages only enforces the case for a conflict of interest. I must agree that a topic ban will be prudent for now; please edit Misplaced Pages, but do not get involved with pages in which you have a personal connection with. DarthBotto _talk•cont 06:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

SPI for user 완젬스

I will hopefully be cleared by the SPI. Can I please ask user:A_Certain_White_Cat to assume good faith? I've acted humbly, respectfully, and deferentially since it was brought to my attention that I'm here at WP:ANI. I want to preface the investigation by saying that I hope your theory that this is an orchestrated campaign can be challenged if your prediction is incorrect. The only SPI problem individual we ever had on OWS articles was user:CentristFianco here. There has never been an allegation about SPI about me before. The only complaints I've had thrown against me were having a pro-OWS bias, which I try to mitigate by only editing sections of the article which are 100% objective (e.g. funding section). I confidently await for the SPI investigation and I have full confidence that there is no conspiracy theory going on. This is just me having a miserable day that I wish I could "undo" but in life, you make mistakes. I just hope my sincerity and honesty will clear up this regretful mishap. I am deeply sorry for my edits today, and they are completely shameful. However, I would never have multiple accounts because that thwarts the consensus process and makes Misplaced Pages worse off for everyone. Hopefully, this SPI issue will encourage everyone to go further back in my edits than my most recent 50 (March 28th - April 20th) and I can have learned this painful lesson and--pending the SPI investigation--I can be given back my editing privileges. I will not damage or do harm. I'm simply inexperienced and too thin-skinned to have the discipline and maturity which you admins have; but, I'm much more aware of my weaknesses after today. I stopped myself once the ANI was posted, and I've done no further self-destructive edits. I feel good about my initial reaction and taking 15 minutes outside to re-think. I hope the SPI will cast doubt to the idea that I'm a conspiring misanthrope. My personality is much too timid and anxious for that type of deliberate malice. I hope the SPI gives evidence to my side of the story. 완젬스 (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not assuming anything. I am following the evidence. -- A Certain White Cat 21:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience. I really do want the SPI to show you that I've been honest here in dealing with today's ANI. I don't want this ANI to drag out or waste anyone's time. There are so many trolls, sock puppets, anon vandals, and other garbage you guys gotta deal with here. I hope to just escape unscathed and disappear from your memory banks. I'm not a bad person at all--just having a really, really bad day which I 100% regret at this point. 완젬스 (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

"This user is about 6 months old" had me thinking "Awwwww, bless! A genius!" Sorry to butt in ... Pesky (talk) 08:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The SPI investigation found no evidence of sockpuppetry.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It was actually closed as an undue request without being investigated. I don't necessarily disagree, as it was sort of a fishing request to begin with, but I just wanted to clarify. Equazcion 19:36, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Efforts of Equaczion to truncate my posts

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:The_Bushranger&oldid=488412395#ANI_issue Please tell Equaczion to refrain from trying to truncate my posts. Correct me if I am wrong, but that's only at WP:Mediation where the mediator has discretion to truncate/edit other users posts and/or move posts to the talk page. He is canvassing now to find a willing admin who agrees with him, but I stand by my argument that if he accuses me of 4 things (bias, coi, false flag, and spi) then he opens up 4 areas for me to defend myself. Also, he will not wait for the SPI to run its course. He has his "hater boots" and I believe he is acting punitively rather than the original issue. This noticeboard should not be a war of attrition or a battle of who can outmaneuver the other person by him having more experience than me. I consider this issue dormant until the SPI investigation is complete or the SPI accusation is withdrawn. 완젬스 (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I asked one admin (User:The Bushranger) for advice on handling this, and he did not say he disagreed -- he just said he didn't want to read through your long posts to figure out what was going on (which, incidentally, is the issue I'm trying to address with these requests). He advised me to ask someone else, and I did. I'm not canvassing for people who agree with me. Equazcion 23:44, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)

(ec)It is cruel and unusual punishment to be sitting for 4 hours hitting refresh on my own WP:ANI. I am held hostage by him because he is dragging this thing out so unfairly. Can someone correct me if I am wrong, but I find it unfair that he is so adamant about getting me topic banned based on bias/coi rather than the coi noticeboard or rfc. It's very unnerving and affecting my real life. I'm afraid to take a break because I don't know what he'll do next. This is simmilar in intent to lawsuit meant to discourage the other party. He is a veteran editor and I'm barely defending myself from these indefensible accusations. Can somebody tell us whether we should wait until SPI is completed or we should take this to a more appropriate noticeboard such as WP:coi as has been suggested already by an admin? 완젬스 (talk) 23:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

What's "cruel and unusual" here is trying to slog though your walls of text... I'm half tempted to propose you be blocked just so that the rest of us could discuss this without it being disrupted by dissertations posted by you! Can one of you please restate what the hell the problem here is, succinctly? Sheesh! (And, by the way, the fact that you feel you have to "sit here and hit refresh" tells me that there probably is a real problem here. Just sayin')
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest waiting for the result of the SPI case before investing any further time here. If he's a sock, then that's the end of it. If not, then we can delve into the actual issue. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 00:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Since 완젬스 seems confident the SPI will come back negative, and SPIs usually take a while, I think it's prudent to try to nip this now rather than attempt to start it up again in the future (whenever the SPI closes, and who ever knows when that will be). Ohms, if you read my initial post, it states the issue and pertinent evidence. 완젬스's defense is rather unclear to me, and I wouldn't try to sum it up anyway since I'm involved. If you take a skim through his large walls of text it should give you an idea. Equazcion 00:24, 21 Apr 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Thanks to both of you admins. I've been defending myself for 5 hours and have gone through 10 cigarettes, some red bulls, and plenty of tylenol. If equaczion continues posting in my absence, please let me reserve the chance tomorrow afternoon to defend myself. WP:ANI is a very serious threat to my editing privileges, which mean a lot to me--enough to endure all the consequences to my shameful mistakes and to hopefully grow from this prolonged, embarrassing shakedown. Cordially, 완젬스 (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Dude. If you're really that stressed out about this, you might want to take a break and do something else for a few days. Or, do some things on this list. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 02:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yea, no kidding. The one thing that's really clear to me here is that this guy needs to relax. Geez. That, and a general cluelessness (which can't be helped by anything but time and experience, but it does provide some insight into possible behavior issues).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely dissuaded by this victim act, but I'll let everyone judge for themselves. Equazcion 02:52, 21 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I believe you mean "persuaded" not "dissuaded". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

...as in dissuaded from my assertions/recommendation :) Equazcion 03:38, 21 Apr 2012 (UTC)

The bottom line is, if he's not socking then he should relax and not worry about it. Does anyone know of a case where someone was wrongly determined to be a sock? I doubt it has ever happened. Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, sock or not, I think a topic ban is in order as his behavior has been problematic, and indicative of either COI or a false-flag operation. After I brought this up, another user thought this might be part of a larger socking scheme -- maybe that's true and maybe it's not, but either way, the issue that brought this here still stands. Equazcion 03:52, 21 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Just say to yourself, "it's just Misplaced Pages - I should really just relax". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Relaxing is a good idea that is for certain. The other bleeding obvious idea is that if someone is willing to talk things out that we give them a chance to do so in the appropriate less stressful venue. I will tell you right now the problem is not just one editor, BULLSHIT.

The pursuit of 'someone to blame' is going to cause more problems. If you single out one editor and miss out chastising anyone who had a part, it is going encourage the editors who got away with it to do it all over again. These editors are best left with some guidance and the opportunity to learn how to deal with the problems presented. The group needs someone to keep an eye on them, and I do not mean lurkers. They respond very well to being asked what the problems are, and working through them, I did so before, and it worked well, but I have been distracted and lost interest. Anyone who wants to fix this can just goto the article talkpage and ask, but it would be a LOT BETTER if the brand new wikiproject was to INVITE people to join, where are your invites guys ? is it a private club ? Then the discussion can be held in the clubhouse. RELAX, Relax, relax. Penyulap ☏ 18:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

And yes I do know my poetry is crap and you're welcome to say so. Penyulap ☏ 18:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

What in the world does this have to do with the issue at hand? There's loads of discussion on the talk page, where it's become clear that the user here (no clue how to pronounce a bunch of Korean(?) characters) is either working for OWS and is seeking to "clean up" their articles by removing negative things, or is intentionally trying to portray the OWS movement in a negative light by misbehaving.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Their username more or less translates to "Wan James" Blackmane (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap seems to be lumping this in with general conflicts that have arisen at the OWS articles. If he takes a closer look at this user though, I think he'll realize that this is a separate and more pressing issue apart from the usual content tiffs that occur there. Equazcion 18:29, 21 Apr 2012 (UTC)

You pronounce it '완젬스', it's easy 완젬스, 완젬스, 완젬스 ! see ? :) I see pressing issues that there is an editor who is RESPONSIVE and open to learning, if he's not warring, then other editors should learn to either realize that editing is what happens on wikipedia, and if they can't discuss things amongst themselves then maybe they need a little guidance, that's all. It's kind of rare to see any editor with no particular slant on their editing, if that editor is discussing things, sweet, if editors all fail to articulate, then that's all editors, not just one. _{(feel free to smack me ohms law)}Penyulap ☏ 18:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You're completely missing the issue here. We're not discussing edit warring, but rather a conflict of interest problem. This editor seems incapable of editing in a neutral manner. The problem has been discussed extensively, and the user seems unwilling and/or unable to fit his interest in the subject into an ability to edit neutrally. That being the case, a topic ban has been proposed, which seems reasonable to me.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not missing the issue, I am seeing two more issues. I agree 100% there is COI. But I disagree at the moment 완젬스 is incapable of learning. I see there is an issue that other editors need guidance on how to correctly see off this kind of editing without resorting to a block and sockfight. I'm kind of medium at it and there are surely editors better at it than me. Teaching them how to sort the useful contributions and mold the bad ones is worth it in the long run, it's a lot less work, and better quality for the articles as well. He seems agreeable and apologetic when he's corrected, just a bit of guidance for all of the editors on how to cope without intervention is needed. Penyulap ☏ 19:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The way I see it, they could cut their workload by 50% by leaving one side of the issue up to this editor and just filtering out what he brings them, in the comfortable knowledge he's keeping close track of everything. Going a block and sock is having a lopsided article possibly, and then you have to work out who is a sock and who is a natural newbie who addresses the same issues. Just keep him/them all in one account and filter it as it goes along, how is this not the easy path ? just add 완젬스 to their watched list and the day's work is done. Penyulap ☏ 19:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

... okay, you really don't understand this. Adding this user "to (my) watchlist" is pointless. We don't let one editor have "one side of the issue." And most commonly, telling someone to "keep in one account" often fails miserably. I'm also worried that you say: "I see there is an issue that other editors need guidance on how to correctly see off this kind of editing without resorting to a block and sockfight." That indicates you only see the problem coming from everyone else. — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I see I failed to express myself properly. I don't mean you, I mean someone who wants to take an interest. There are 3 or 4 editors who are dealing with 완젬스, but they're not experienced enough to throw water on the fire, but are asking for the fire to be shoveled outside wikipedia's door, where it'll keep burning, and all the smocks will come back inside. It's easy to help 완젬스 to fit in better because he fully engages in conversation. But I see too many editors want to play survivor. So dump community and just vote him off the island. Penyulap ☏ 21:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

If I understand this suggestion properly, it's ridiculous. This is not an American court of law, where "justice" is imagined to be found by having each side present their own biased case, allowing the jury or judge to accept one or the other or, occasionally, hew a road down the middle. All Misplaced Pages editors are expected to contribute here in a non-biased way by providing material supported by proper reliable sources. We don't let one editor take one side of an issue and other editors take the other side and let them battle it out. If the fellow with Korean name that's unpronounceable to an English-speaking editor cannot edit within basic policy, then he shouldn't be allowed to edit. Period. We have nothting to gain by allowing him to frolic here in support of his own political beliefs. And that's the case for every editor for whom a POV is more important that building a reliable and neutral encycylopedia. Get rid of them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I think where the misunderstanding is, is that every person not just every editor has a different point of view, this is fundamental to the laws of the universe. What non-biased is on wiki is a question of how far from your own point of view someone else is, or how far from one group of people another is. The lines that are drawn are just as elastic as the underlying laws of the universe they are written on, the wik has no clear definition or measure for bias. That is all fine, because you have to be practical and make generalization, I'm saying that having the skill to cope with differences in a civilized manner measures the success of wikipedia. If people just say 'I do not need to work on my conversation skills, I can simply turn my back and plug my ears' then the scope of the project narrows because people don't practice the skills required to make wikipedia work. Penyulap ☏ 14:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

No, we understand you feel that way. What you're not getting is that, at some point, a user becomes disruptive enough it is no longer worth the time to keep arguing with them. And your childish comments about plugging our ears are really not helping you here. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Little note, a community ban is not what's being proposed; just a topic ban from the stuff he has a COI/etc with. Equazcion 23:23, 21 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this user has repeatedly been asked to quit discussing his personal association to OWS and going even further than thay by suggesting that all the other "good" editors are in agreement with him. I too believe that a topic ban would be appropriate. Gandydancer (talk) 02:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap, you're still not getting it. I knew you meant "anyone who takes an interest," but watchlisting someone's user page is useless. It doesn't tell you a damn thing about what they're editing. Further, you still don't understand the situation: this user "fully engages in conversation," then does whatever he wants anyway. That's not something that can be fixed with a gentle talking-to, because that's what people have been doing, to no effect. Also, you keep insulting the other people in this situation ("they're not experienced enough to throw water on the fire"). That is getting quite old, and you need to stop doing that. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Beyond that, Penyulap, who are these "inexperienced" editors who've been trying to engage? Amadscientist, who's been on Misplaced Pages several years longer than you have? TheArtistAKA, Racingstripes or Becritical, who've been on Misplaced Pages two years longer than you have? Honestly, even if "I'm-more-experienced-than-thou" ever did work on Misplaced Pages, it's not a challenge that someone who registered a year ago can credibly pull off. Ravenswing 00:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Guys, I don't quite agree with "you still don't understand the situation" or the above comment, this issue is not 'just another generic ANI issue passing by that penyulap comments on' I've been contributing to that talkpage for close to 5 months with dozens of edits, so Ravenswing, when you look past my registration time and look at the actual topic of discussion here which is the ows, you are saying therefore, that I've been part of that conversation for a third or maybe half of my time on wikipedia, and somehow don't know what I am talking about, doesn't sound the same when you look at it that way now does it. Penyulap ☏ 14:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does. You don't get it. That's obvious by your comments above. It's also starting to wear out my WP:AGF. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, Penyulap, I did notice that you have fewer articlespace edits than talk page edits; for my part, I'd rather improve the encyclopedia than talk about it. But that being said, how could you possibly have construed my statement to mean that you don't know anything about that particular conversation? I was talking about *your* claims that other editors - who had been on Misplaced Pages far longer than you, and several of which have far more edits than you - are too "inexperienced" to handle the situation. Would you like to respond to what I actually did say, rather than what you wanted me to have said? Ravenswing 18:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• I would support a topic ban from Occupy Wall Street and related articles, broadly construed. I'm 99% positive he's a conservative (or at least anti-OWS) troll, but regardless of whether he is or isn't, his editing patterns are unacceptably disruptive. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This page written by him makes it obvious he's a troll. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

If you were able to read that, you're a better man than I.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - Whether an anti-OWS troll or a pro-OWS editor is irrelevant, since in either case the user is not editing with a WP:NPOV. Also, I'd like to point out that several other support !votes are scattered through the previous discussion and should be taken into account. (Equazcion, who proposed it, Ohms law, DarthBotto, Gandydancer and Kevin Gorman just above this.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Do not support topic ban (YET) Just an FYI, the editor 완젬스 has stayed within Misplaced Pages policy in regards to stating a conflict of interest and their intention to refrain from editing the section in question. I believed it would have been best (and suggested at the time or close to it) that he not edit the article at all and this is part of the reason. Conflict of interest means not doing anything self serving. It is THE TOP Project OWS guideline and was written expressly because of the many editors who edit articles with an Occupy related title and who are closely related to the subject. I think what may be happening should not be taken for anything more than what it appears as 완젬스 has been editing at Misplaced Pages long enough to not be considered an operative to make OWS look bad....if this were true all COI claims go out the window. It becomes a witch hunt in my opinion for, what could well be one faction of a politcal protest, warring over how to define the national and worldwide definitions of OWS. I believe the person who made the suggestion to topic ban to be difficult to collaborate with and who seems less than willing to really discuss content disputes without making claims of behavior problems and accusations such as tag teaming.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• With an editor making posts like this one I have no idea how he can productively edit in this topic area. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

There are more examples of that kind of blatant COI revelation in the article talkpage archives and various user talkpages going back to Fall 2011. I don't have time to dig through them now but if anyone else is so inclined, I suggest starting with User:완젬스's talkpage history from its beginning. I have not seen him become any more "responsive" or able to learn from others, as Penyulap claims above. (By the way, apparently the name is transliterated as Wanjemseu according to a regular editor at the OWS article). El duderino 19:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Haven't got a clue what that was about but have my thoughts.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for this user under this username. I recommended to him that he should leave for a while, get another username, and come back as an editor who is there to promote NPOV, not to promote OWS. This user has a lot to offer, if he can do it within the WP framework. He said he was going to leave, then come back with another username and do it differently. I think that he should be banned but allowed to come back with another username. If he can do that and act differently, then he will be good for the encyclopedia. Continuing to be promotional and not doing as he said, however, does merit a topic ban. So I would topic ban him but allow a return if he feels he can reform. If he is an anti-OWS troll, he is doing a mighty good job of it. He is totally convincing in his wiki-clueless oh-gosh promotionalism. B——C_ritical 03:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support 3 month topic ban per BMK, Kevin Gorman and others above; no prejudice against a return and no prejudice against a quick reinstatement of the ban if the problems continue. SÆdon 07:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support (short-term) topic ban: Either the editor genuinely believes in the OWS cause, in which case he's a hardcore POV warrior and doesn't need to be involved in these articles, or he's a agent provocateur trolling his merry way through the field, in which case he doesn't need to be involved in these articles. Let's let him spend a month or two convincing people that he can edit calmly, reasonably and in accordance with policies and guidelines, and revisit the issue then. Ravenswing 00:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - When the subject said "Everyone thinks Jews run wall street..." that was the give away to me. --Mollskman (talk) 03:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I love ANI. Penyulap ☏

• Comment Does someone want to close this thing? I think we have a consensus. Equazcion 01:00, 25 Apr 2012 (UTC)

What are legitimate grounds for a precipitate block for edit warring?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have to ask, as admin User:Tiptoety seemed to think that diffs to five edits made in two and a half months do, and blocked me (without any prior warning, or any input in the talk page discussions) accordingly - the block has of course been lifted. TenOfAllTrades summarises the diffs given as 'evidence' nicely:

1. 19 April - restored a critical comment about the product's nutritional value
2. 11 April - undid a whitewash that deleted well-referenced mention of the company CEO's legal troubles related to a previous health drink
3. 1 March - removed an unsourced description of a critic as a 'competitor'
4. 27 February - removed the same unsourced description (this is the only revert which Andy repeated, and the only time Andy reverted twice within a seven-day period)
5. 7 February - removed the addition of what amounted to an advertising blurb for a new product.

In the same period of time, Andy has posted five times to the article talk page, relating to the edits that he has made. Where is the fire that your block is putting out, Tiptoety? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This is in relation to our article on MonaVie a 'multi-level-marketing' company of dubious repute which promotes vastly-overpriced fruit juices for 'health and wellness' despite a complete lack of evidence for any meaningful benefits. I suggest that a look at the article history, and the talk page, will illustrate why this article is of concern to me, and to other editors (one of whom User:Rhode Island Red is still blocked, along with User:Ed.Valdez who was deleting sourced negative information from the article).

As I wrote on my talk page, it seems to me that this block is sufficiently contrary to established Misplaced Pages policy and procedures that I have to question the fitness of User:Tiptoety as an administrator. Or have I misunderstood policy to the extent that attempts to maintain NPOV, and requirements regarding reliable sourcing, in articles being 'spun' by multiple SPAs is to be understood as against policy? If so, Misplaced Pages has a serious problem.

At minimum, we need a clarification of policy here, and an explanation from User:Tiptoety as to how he/she came to make such a decision - Tiptoety's only response so far has been to post a rather dismissive (and factually incorrect) comment on my talk page: . Contrary to the assertion therin, I had been engaged in talk-page discussions regarding the article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy, can you explain why, rather than use standard practices for dealing with an editor you believed to be disruptive, you (and others) simply continued to undo his changes (the same ones or different ones), over and over? Can you explain why, given that you've previously been blocked for edit warring and are clearly very much aware of the policy, and yet you continued to revert on MonaVie, you feel that Tiptoety should have had reason to believe yet another warning drawing your attention to the policy would have had any effect? These questions also apply to RhodeIslandRed and EdValdez, if they'd care to answer them. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I have the memory of a sieve. Could you point to one time you've dealt, before getting your precious tools, with a disruptive editor who was not a blatant vandal? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Can we please stay on topic - this isn't about User:Fluffernutter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

@ Fluffernutter: Can you explain why you consider any of my actions as contrary to policy? And, in answer to your question, if the problem had been a single editor, of course 'standard practices' may be effective - but how long do you expect it would take for another POV-pushing SPA to appear? Articles of this nature are inherently prone to systematic spinning by those with utter disregard for Misplaced Pages policy, and NPOV can only ever me maintained by watching the article itself: sadly, this sort of thing is a disheartening and thankless task. Maybe I should stop doing it, and leave the articles to the snake-oil salesmen... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy, from my point of view the entire recent history of the article has violated policy because editors seem to have mostly given up on talking, and have settled on just undoing each other repeatedly ("a series of back and forth reverts", to quote WP:EW). Multiple editors were involved in this, and I think Tiptoety was not out of left field to stop the behavior with blocks, though obviously it's debatable whether that turned out to be the best strategy.

As far as handling POV pushing, there's a couple ways to deal with that if it can be established that it's happening. ANI has recently started handing out discretionary sanctions on articles and topics, if I recall correctly, which means that if a case is made here that MonaVie has a long-term history of SPAs or POV pushing, the article could be placed under 1RR or problematic editors could be topic banned with much more ease than they currently are. ANI has also always been able to topic-ban or block individual editors if evidence can be presented of them misbehaving. Arbcom, obviously, has the same abilities. It would be extremely disappointing if you opted to stop editing the article because of POV pushing or other problems, and I encourage you to not do that. What I'm trying to communicate, actually, is that we do have the ability to handle problem editors. You don't have to do it all yourself (alone or among two or three of you) when we have so many processes that can - really can, I promise - help you address the root cause instead. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Fluffernutter's protestations seem to ring a bit hollow, given that he has made his own very similar reverts to the very same article over the years: , , , . This seems to be very much a 'do as I say, not as I do' situation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. some statistics from the MonaVie article contributions history to ponder:

AndyTheGrump: article edits 11, talk page edits 15.

Fluffernutter: article edits 7, talk page edits 1.

I think that lectures on "editors seem to have mostly given up on talking" coming from someone in that situation are somewhat questionable. Not that I had 'given up on talking' anyway, as the article talk page shows. Still, this is all rather off-topic anyway: I still want to hear from User:Tiptoety regarding the more important issue: his/her interpretation of policy, and why it is so far at odds with with other contributors and admins. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

NB: Fluffernutter's preferred pronouns are 'she/her/hers'. ~Crazytales (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Tiptoety seems to be relying on a very broad interpretation of the opening sentence of WP:3RR: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion." Even assuming an admin can block without warning a user who "repeatedly" reverts over a 2-month period, it doesn't address the caveat about resolving the disagreement by discussion, which, for the moment, I will take you at your word you did. In addition, given the outer boundaries of the policy that Tiptoety is invoking, I would think that a warning would precede a block. Finally, Tiptoety's statement that Andy has been blocked before and therefore he must know the rules, implying that a block isn't needed, is a bit sly as, again, this isn't your standard edit war, and many users, not just Andy, would be taken aback by such a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've unblocked both User:Rhode Island Red and User:Ed.Valdez following the discussion on Andy's TP. I'm not sure if any further admin action is required or not. SmartSE (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Technically yes, since the autoblocks were still in place. That issue is solved though. :) Excirial 20:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This was a massive breach of admin authority. You cant decide unilaterally on your own to block someone prer WP:IDONTLIKEIT with a word of community consensus. Should be outright WP:BOOMERANG...but then again ive seen that happen when an admin feels like doing so to no accountability. (a la HJMitchell on me). Its stilly to have permanent admins...should be elected rotationally to keep them accountable an don their toes. Many will very well get reelected but many others wont.Lihaas (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh my, term limits with a twist. Another in the line of if-an-admin-makes-a-mistake-kill-them.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• This is a serious issue as there are hundreds of articles about dubious companies, diploma mills, products, and similar SPA magnets. Yes, discussion is necessary and edit warring is bad, but the standard required by Tiptoety in this case is so unrealistic as to fail the laugh test. Would people please review the history at MonaVie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and comment on how they would like an admin to handle such a situation? I find it unacceptable that an admin should think it desirable to block an editor who has made three edits in the past two months with no warning that such high standards were expected (particularly when each of the three edits is good, and the editor made three good comments at the talk page in the same period). Are there some particular sanctions applying to this topic, or should good editors abandon trying to protect Misplaced Pages from SPA POV pushers? Johnuniq (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: Tiptoety has now posted on my talk page, first with a rather equivocal apology , and then, after I suggested that a response here would seem appropriate, a repeat of the apology, and a statement that he/she has "no interest in furthering the drama an AN/I". Frankly, I find this rather distainful dismissal of due process further grounds to question Tiptoety's qualifications to be an admin. A gross misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages policy like this needs more than half-hearted apologies, as Johnuniq suggests above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I can only second Johnuniq's comments. First off how can any of the three blocks handed out be viewed as anything but punitive? If it truly was a slow edit war (and the evidence for that is lacking) 24 hour blocks are not going to "prevent" anything. As has been shown discussion about the article was taking place on its talk page so the block did not cool anyone off or start a discussion where one wasn't going on. Next, I know that it is nice idea to have a "stable" version of an article but at its basic level Misplaced Pages is designed so that articles evolve and change over time, thus, the term "stable" is relative. When it comes to articles about politics (current politics anyway), religion and pseudo science experience has shown that it is unlikely that there will ever be a "stable" version. Even if an article has achieved some stability for a few months new SPA's and POV pushers will always arrive. In this case it looks like the admin culled through the edit history and then blocked those that had made changes over a period of weeks or months without thoroughly investigating what those edits were. If an admin is in the pursuit of a "stable" version of an article they should make sure that they have all of the facts at hand before making a decision to block anyone. That involves discussing things with the editors involved. They could then issue suggestions to the parties. Also, I don't see anything that states that uninvolved admins or editors can't start a "Request for Comment" or get a "Dispute Resolution" process underway. Either of those would be better than pulling the trigger and issuing punitive blocks. Blocks like this one can only have a chilling effect on the community at large and that will only embolden vandals, SPAs and POV pushers. MarnetteD | Talk 02:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh the drahma. An admin made a mistake. We all make mistakes. Even AndyTheGrump makes mistakes. The mistake was swiftly rectified. No harm to ATG. Tiptoety admitted the mistake and apologized. Regardless, ATG maintains full-blown vindictive mode, with repeated po-faced assertions that the mistake - and the choice not to participate in this dramafest - are "grounds for questioning" Tiptoety's "suitability as an administrator". Please. Get over yourself Andy. To be AndyTheMagnanimous might even make you feel good! Writegeist (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

So admins issuing precipitous drive-by blocks and then apologising (less than enthusiastically) afterwards when called to account by multiple contributors isn't an issue for ANI? What the heck is this noticeboard for then? Or are admins supposed to get a free pass? As for 'No harm to ATG', ignoring the fact that I've had to waste hours sorting this mess out when I could have been doing something more useful, other contributors were also blocked. More to the point though Tiptoety still seems to think that this was some sort of 'judgement call', whereas almost everyone else seems to think otherwise. So yes, I question Tiptoety's "suitability as an administrator" - as I (and any other Misplaced Pages contributor) is entitled to, particularly when they seem to be so clueless about policy, and so dismissive of requests to adequately explain themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Dismissing Andy's report in these terms implies that the other editors who have commented here and elsewhere are misguided and that their comments need no consideration. A quick resolution would start with a consensus that the blocks were wildly wrong (not just a "mistake")—any good editor would have done what Andy did. Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hm. You're missing the point: Tiptoety doesn't have to give a shit. Andy should be grateful to have received an apology; if that isn't enough, Andy should just be re-blocked for his ungratefulness. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he should be grateful that an administrator would give even a weaselly, backhanded apology to a lowly commoner. If that peasant doesn't like it, he should be thrown back to the pillory for such insolent insubordination. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of contributing to "the drahma" (something I cannot often be accused of), I'll weigh in to agree with Johnuniq 100%. As far as I can tell, Andy wasn't even close to edit warring. Judging from the five diffs at the top of the thread, what he was doing was making fully constructive, highly clueful edits. While admins, like the rest of us, do make mistakes and hardly need to prostrate themselves in shame afterward, some of the comments I'm seeing in this thread appear dismissive of the gravity of the mistake. Aside from the block's being unjustified on edit warring grounds, it was also procedurally bad because there was no apparent reason to believe it would prevent disruption. It certainly gives me pause, anyway, and makes me wonder if my lack of blocks to date is due less to good behavior and more to some sort of incredible luck. Or maybe I have a guardian angel. Or something. Rivertorch (talk) 05:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

We all make mistakes, of course. But when a rollbacker makes a mistake rollback is taken away. When an administrator makes a mistake (and this was a big one) the usual suspects turn out to defend it. The bottom line is that Tiptoey has shown himself to be an incompetent administrator and should be desysoped. Malleus Fatuorum 06:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, speaking of drahma . . . You lost me there. While the mistake was a serious one, I cannot see that it constitutes evidence of incompetence. In most cases we should be forgiven for our big mistakes as well as our small ones. I draw a distinction, however, between forgiving those who make mistakes and treating the victims of those mistakes in a casually dismissive manner. Rivertorch (talk) 06:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me put it a little more bluntly for you then. It wasn't a mistake, it was evidence of incompetence. The only other explanation is dishonesty, but I'll leave that for others to decide. Either way, do we really need incompetent/dishonest administrators? Malleus Fatuorum 06:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep, this is why I avoid ANI. My better nature is screaming at me to unwatchlist this and go elsewhere, but the evil demon within goads me to respond just once more. You're making a very serious allegation that cannot possibly be documented by citing only one incident. Suggesting that another editor is incompetent (or, far worse, dishonest) without providing proper substantiation seems to me just about as reckless and callous as blocking someone without cause or making light of such a block. There are human beings behind these usernames, and they deserve better than that. Rivertorch (talk) 06:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, you've never encountered Malleus before. This is his normal MO. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You lot may be afraid to call a spade a fucking shovel, but I'm not. Malleus Fatuorum 18:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I dare say I do disagree with the rollback comparison. "when a rollbacker makes a mistake rollback is taken away" I've made mistakes a couple of times with rollback, a misclick and a misread of something, and I still have rollback. I agree that rights should be taken away from people who deliberately and/or consistently misuse them, but if they're taken away for one mistake, no one will ever have any rights whatsoever (perhaps that'd be a good thing, heh). If Tiptoety hadn't apologised and admitted they were in error, I'd think differently. Everyone makes mistakes. Hard pushed to find an admin who hasn't. Bunnies! Leave a message 18:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not "afraid" of anything. I disagree with you, and find your "fuck the police" attitude towards admins tiresome. — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

"What do we do about SPA POV pushers?" Let me know when you find out. Tom Harrison 15:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Leave them a note explaining why their edits are problematic. If they carry on bring them here (or somewhere else). If you can show they've been warned and then they carried on regardless, then that's a reason to block. You're right though that admins should help editors who are willing to defend our articles against SPA POV pushers and give them a little leeway in terms of 3RR/civility. The project needs more editors who will stand up against them, rather than more POV pushers. SmartSE (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please close this? Andy was blocked. He was unblocked because the block was unwarranted. He received an apology from the blocking admin, although it wasn't apparently as abject as Andy felt it should have been. After that, the discussion devolved into an argument of how much blood we should draw from the blocking admin to see if he has an enzyme for incompetence and should therefore be euthanized.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please not close this. As I made quite clear at the start, and others have subsequently also suggested, there are issues other than the inappropriate behaviour of a single admin being discussed here: in particular, we need to clarify what the situation is when having to revert POV-pushing SPAs who refuse to comply with policy (and often refuse to communicate at all). If editors have to risk being blocked for 'edit-warring' due to well-intentioned (and seemingly policy compliant) actions taken out to preserve NPOV in contentious/fringe articles, Misplaced Pages will have a serious problem keeping such articles policy-compliant. Though BTW, I'd also like some clarification on whether an admin, when asked to explain their actions at ANI declines to do so: per WP:ADMINACCT: "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Misplaced Pages-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed". I feel that a mere apology on a talk page (of only one of the persons blocked) falls well short of this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm really sympathetic to you on this one, Andy: editors who try to ensure our articles comply with WP:NPOV and who maintain their quality against the onslaught of accounts who are here for one reason (accounts who generally don't know or care about WP:BRD) should get some support from the admin corps, and that support is woefully inconsistent. Sometimes such editors get prompt and helpful responses from admins, sometimes – as in your case – they get blocked for insisting that BRD be followed. Is it possible to sort out that inconsistency at AN/I? Probably not. Would an RfC help? Maybe. 28bytes (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Do RFCs ever sort out anything? The only way to sort this out is to sanction administrators like Tiptoey who block those trying to protect articles, under the guise of edit warring. Malleus Fatuorum 19:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, there are two issues, as I see it: I can't imagine there will be much appetite for sanctioning an admin whose first response to being challenged is "It appears I have made a mistake, and I apologize." At least I don't have an appetite for it, others may. The broader issue is, when someone with either an axe to grind against an article subject or an interest in whitewashing legitimate, reliably sourced criticism repeatedly ignores the bold-revert-discuss cycle and just re-inserts their changes without consensus, how can editors stop that without making them vulnerable to edit-warring blocks themselves? Perhaps either promoting BRD to a policy, or incorporating stronger language into the edit-warring policy that makes it explicit that bold-revert-bold is the "official" start of an edit war (analogous to the language used in WP:WHEEL: "Do not repeat a reversed administrative actionedit when you know that another administratoreditor opposes it. Do not continue a chain of administrative reversalsreverts without discussion. Resolve admin disputes by discussing.") Or perhaps some other approach. An RfC may not solve it but I think the odds are greater than trying to solve it here, especially when it's tied to a specific admin action. 28bytes (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to have been a mistake, it was a mistake, and a bad one, which is the issue that's being swept under the carpet here. Malleus Fatuorum 21:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not "swept under the carpet," it's "this isn't enough to block/desysop him for." — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think codifying BRD would really help much. In my experience, once we get Edit-Revert-Edit-Revert, the reverting party needs to stop. Post to the talk page, post to the inserting editor's talk page, try to get a dialog going. If the edit is inserted again, without discussion, it's time to hit AIV or ask an admin familiar with the page to intervene. The exception being blatant vandalism on BLP pages. In that case, an Edit-Revert-Edit should be taken straight to AIV. Either way, repeatedly reverting the edit is just asking for trouble. What looks like clear vandalism to one person may actually be a legitimate edit to an uninvolved party.

I honestly find the WP:DR system rather ineffectual in these situations, especially RfCs. The latter tends to just drag on with no resolution until one side gives up out of frustration, or starts inserting the material again. I'm just not sure what we could effectively replace DR with outside granting admins more broad leeway to block (which would just make things more tense than they are now). — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

AIV? AIV is completely the wrong place to go. POV pushing isn't vandalism. It can be equally disruptive, but it's different. It's not in the scope of AIV at all. I don't know what experience you've had, but having whoever reverts need to stop results in an easy way to game the system and push disruptive text in. Guideline or not, WP:BRD provides a base point. As you noted, DR is often ineffective. If we're set to punish those that revert, AndyTheGrump is right in saying the articles will go to "snake-oil salesmen" or the equivalent in whatever the dispute is. CMD (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

As a comment, an admin who has made one mistake, unless it's absolutely jumping the shark, shouldn't be subject to desysopping; I suspect all of our admins can pass the Turing test and are, therefore, not expected to be perfect. If there was a pattern of administorial misbehavior, then perhaps, but that does not seem to be the case here. Consensus is it was a bad block, the admin involved apologised (where they apologised is irrelevant; they apologised clearly in a place where the person being apologised to clearly would see it, insisting they apologise more elsewhere is just hauling to the pillory), and the heat:light ratio here is threatening to rise. {{Trout}} the admin in question and close. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

All mistakes are not equal; I note that you make no distinction in that respect. There's an absurd assumption here that you can just reverse a bad block and no harm done. Let me assure you that's very far from the truth. Malleus Fatuorum 22:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

There seem to be several misunderstandings above, regarding what happened, and when. Firstly, The Hand That Feeds You states that "repeatedly reverting the edit is just asking for trouble". As the diffs show, it wad different material that was being reverted, except for a single case. It is also untrue to suggest that we are referring to "an admin whose first response to being challenged 'It appears I have made a mistake, and I apologize'". Tiptoety's first response was to attempt to justify the block by referring to my actions as edit-warring, falsely suggesting that I had failed to try to resolve the issue through discussion. It was only when I raised the matter here that Tiptoety apologised: and only to me - no apology to the others blocked, and no apology for the trouble this ridiculous set of blocks had caused others to sort out. Tiptoety's refusal to discuss the issue here, combined with an editing pattern I find rather troubling in its limited scope, suggests to me that we do a problem with an out-of-touch admin, and/or a clear misunderstanding as to how we should be dealing with POV-pushing SPAs who are unwilling to work within policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

No one is claiming that because Tiptoety made a mistake their admin bit should be removed. There are three issues (it's #1 and #2 which call into question Tiptoety's suitability as an admin):

1. Tiptoety's apology was one of those dismissive "...correct my mistakes if I make them. It appears I have made a mistake, and I apologize" apologies which superficially ticks the CIVIL box but which reveals that there has been no thought at all about the matter.
2. Tiptoety has declined to participate in a very reasonable ANI discussion. There is no need for a protracted back-and-forth, just one clear statement on the underlying issue.
3. What are good editors to do when faced with POV-pushing SPAs? The above suggestion that "it's time to hit AIV or ask an admin familiar with the page to intervene" is totally unhelpful. The AIV suggestion is a grave misunderstanding of the purpose of AIV (read the box at the top), and there is no mechanism to find an admin familiar with the page. Also it is not reasonable that those defending the encycopedia should spend half an hour writing reports for every one-minute addition of unsuitable content (of course some time on talk is necessary, but it is not reasonable to require a lengthy analysis for every edit).

Johnuniq (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree, that wasn't an apology worthy of its name from Tiptoety. It was a very poor triple block all reverted on first inspection by other administrators and, 3, yes, I agree such actions degrade users ability to defend NPOV edits - Andy's edits as displayed by Toat were in no way blockable - I wondered , who asked him to do it? was there any off wiki requests, or on that chat log irc thing, it was hard to see why he did it but at least this exposure will stop him doing it again in future - I have on multiple occasions when attempted to apply policy to edits a COI SPA has been just reverting and failing to discuss had to just say, what the hell let them add whatever they want rather than get blocked.Youreallycan 23:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

From WP:EDITWAR:

An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion. Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned.

To answer the original question, anyone who participates in an edit war can be blocked per policy. The admin in question has already apologized (even though he may have been right per policy), and while the sincerity of said apology has been called into question (those doing so may want to read WP:SORRY), the fact remains that one was given. My suggestion for dealing with the POV pushing that resulted in the original edit war is to revert obviously dubious material and if said behavior continues the user(s) involved should be reported for WP:3RR violations or general disruptive editing. This doesn't even require a noticeboard post, it can be pinged to any online admin. N419BH 00:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

He wasn't right on policy, and there was no edit war. I find this defence of a clear abuse of power to be most unsavoury. Malleus Fatuorum 00:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, its wiki lawyering nonsense. Ping ! - Who was it that asked Tiptoety to look at the article and was that user involved in editing the article, I have asked User_talk:Fluffernutter#Question if it was him - its incredulous that Tiptoety wandered by and blocked three users for this. Youreallycan 00:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not commenting on the merits of this case. The thread is so long WP:TLDR that no light will come out of it. I have answered the original question as posed in the section title of when a block may be issued for edit warring and am attempting to provide a path to a resolution. I am not going to spend a half hour or more reading this thread and an additional two hours investigating the exact merits of the case, and I suspect neither is anyone else who is not already involved. Note that I said the admin in question "may" have been right, not that he actually was. If the apology is to be believed (and it is my opinion that it should be) then the admin has admitted he made a mistake and there is nothing further to do here because there is nothing further that can be done. If we expected perfection from our admins and desysopped for a single mistake then we would have none, because as humans we all make mistakes. If the parties here feel and can provide evidence for a pattern of poor use/misuse of the tools the proper place for such discussion is the talk page of the admin in question first, WP:RFC second, and WP:ARBCOM third. It is my understanding that the first step may have already been taken, and if it has and the parties feel the issue is not resolved I would encourage them to consider filing a RFC if they believe such behavior was particularly egregious and part of a pattern of disruptive/misuse of the tools. If it wasn't and was merely a mistake, then I would suggest everyone move on. N419BH 00:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, you say its too long and yet you come from nowhere, edit history to post two long posts - welcome back - what exactly is your involvement here in this topic? - Youreallycan 00:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that you move on N419BH, as you have admitted to having no interest in looking at the facts of this case. Malleus Fatuorum 00:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - There is clearly more to this than meets the eye - the focus should remain on the administrators actions, the weakness of policy to protect experienced good faith users from such poor administration is a topic for another location. Youreallycan 00:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Focus on admin actions: "Admin are free to act according to their personal judgement. They are accountable to none." Close this thread now. Moving on. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 00:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaken and your last post here was also completely mistaken, All users are accountable here, Youreallycan 01:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Some administrators clearly do believe that they're accountable to none, but they're very much mistaken. Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Admins are accountable to the community and are bound by policy. If you feel Tiptoey has lost the confidence of the community to utilize his tools in compliance with policy file a WP:RFC/U. He's not going to get desysopped via an ANI thread. N419BH 00:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no honesty here. An RFC would achieve nothing, as editors like you would once again turn out to support this admin without any interest in the facts. Malleus Fatuorum 01:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

If you are unwilling to contribute to a thread which explains what happens on wikipedia you can go back to cloud cuckoo land. Admins can do whatever they want. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

No, they can't. If you all wish to continue to complain feel free to do so. You are not going to accomplish anything here. I do not say that as a matter of insult I say it as a matter of fact. I mean no disrespect or ill will toward any of you. If you wish to hold Tiptoey accountable file a WP:RFC/U and see what happens. If this is a single incident and you know nothing will come out of a RFC/U I would suggest dropping the stick. N419BH 01:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

There are unresolved issues regarding this issue and User Tipotoety should rather come and answer them -Please don't close the discussion down with demeaning yada yada comments Youreallycan 01:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Tiptoey has indicated that he will not enter this discussion; which is completely within his choice to do so. I would suggest asking him regarding the specific issues on his talk page. If he doesn't answer that's also within his choice but I would imagine if you ask him in a cordial and polite manner he will answer you. N419BH 01:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

No, he doesn't give a shit and he doesn't have to. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I think that Andy, Malleus, and Youreallycan are "right" here (which is starting to happen frighteningly often, recently). All the ducking and hiding, excuses, and blame shifting (nevermind what appears to be a sockpuppet of someone), are certainly not putting the administrator and his friends in a good light here.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Two comments, one with my checkuser hat on, and one off, from reading this thread and doing my own digging. First, with it off, the block of AndyTheGrump and Rhode Island Red are, IMO, bad decisions that have properly been reversed. Second, with it on, the two POV-pushing accounts are socks confirmed by checkuser. AS such Ive blocked Ed.Valdez and YorbaLindaOCMan indefinitely. Courcelles 01:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  Too little too late. Will AndyTheGrump's block be erased from his log? No, of course it won't. Will a record of Tiptoey's bad block be added to his log? No, of course it won't. Malleus Fatuorum 02:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  What's a bit surprising/concerning is that Tiptoety is also a CU - shouldn't they have realised the duck like nature of these socks and checked before blocking anyone? SmartSE (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for AN/I resolution 0001: "The Misplaced Pages community deplores User:Tiptoety's block of AndyTheGrump. This block violated Misplaced Pages's blocking policies. Further violations of Misplaced Pages's blocking policies will lead to a referral to ArbCom with the recommendation of desysopping." Count Iblis (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Before commenting on the merits of the proposal, I'd suggest that mention of the block of Rhode Island Red (also trying to maintain NPOV) should be given, and I'm not sure that I'm convinced that on the evidence that Tiptoey had, the block of Ed.Valdez was actually merited, without at least some effort to engage in prior dialogue: he(she?) was at least posting on the talk page. A block for sockpuppetry is another matter, but at the time, this wasn't a consideration. As for the 'resolution' it seems to me that what is actually most problematic wasn't the blocks themselves - which though clearly wrong in at least two cases, might be put down to an error, but the complete failure to engage in any dialogue before. From looking at Tiptoety's edit history, he/she seems to be almost exclusively involved in reverting and warning IPs engaging in simple vandalism/test edits etc, and in checkuser/sockpuppet issues. Less than 1% of Tiptoey's edits are on article talk pages, which suggests to me a reluctance to actually engage on substantive issues regarding article content - less than ideal for an admin, I'd have thought. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

why? "Every admin can do whatever the fuck they want until some resolution is passed reminding them to keep the promises they made?" Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 02:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I must've missed something. Who (or what) the hell are you quoting?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It's simply rewording the proposed "resolution" into plainspeak. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 02:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Only the ArbCom can pass resolutions under Chapter 7, but we can refer cases to the ArbCom based on previous conduct. Count Iblis (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Edit warring → Is there a reason why we should not trash this entire policy (given that it has been declared that an RFC will clearly not resolve anything and that the entire policy is unenforceable)? --MuZemike 07:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to provide diffs regarding this supposed 'edit warring'. Nobody else has... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

That's my entire point. If wiki-politics is going to decide what is or is not edit warring, then why have a policy in the first place? --MuZemike 07:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I've got a better idea. Strip Tiptoey of their admin privs unceremoniously after all of their service, and transfer those privs jointly, de facto-style, to Malleus and Andy. We lose one admin, but gain two, just like that! No RfA or anything. Because: they know better. They will never make a similar mistake. And if they did; they'd be extra "forgiving". I just know it. Doc talk 07:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I've got an even better idea. Read the discussion. Look at the evidence. And then make a meaningful contribution. And for the record, I have no wish to become an admin. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I've got an even even better idea. Drop the WP:STICK. You aren't going to get him desysopped here. If you really feel that wronged, file a WP:RFC/U. N419BH 07:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

And a better idea still: Fuck off go away and troll elsewhere, whoever's sockpuppet you are. I'm not trying to get anyone 'desysopped', I'm trying to get a serious problem at least looked at by contributors (admins or otherwise) who actually consider Misplaced Pages article content more important than the vacuous dramas of ANI and the rest. A POV-pushing sockpuppet was attempting to spin an article in favour of a bunch of dubious characters promoting a 'multi-level-marketing' scheme based on selling vastly-overpriced fruit juice as a cure for anything and everything. For my pains, I got blocked from editing. Do you think this was a good thing, or a bad thing? Unless you have something to say regarding this I don't give a toss what you think - Misplaced Pages can manage well enough without the 'contributions' of those who seem to think that this is some sort of juvenile role-playing game. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You're not trying to get Tiptoey desysopped? Good. You've made more than enough comments regarding their ability as an admin: do I need to spell it out for you? Perhaps not trashing them here, and moving along, would show more good faith in regards to that editor. RfC/U is down the street. Sticking to the issue would probably be better than asking for heads to roll. Doc talk 08:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

With over 8,000 total contributions and two good articles, I am no one's sockpuppet, and no troll either. I have been busy in real life for the past several months, and noticed this thread and attempted to inject some advice into it after logging in to make a couple edits on an article I pretty much wrote the present form of. Several respected editors, admins, and a checkuser have given you roughly the same advice. You're not going to get anything accomplished here. I am sorry if you do not like it but you're not going to get anything else out of this thread. Policy has been explained, the admin has given an explanation and an apology. What more do you desire? N419BH 08:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

What else do I desire? That people who can't be bothered to look at the evidence and the prior discussions keep their opinions to themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Small-browser Break

I'm sorry, but everyone should inhale deeply. Andy started this discussion to open a dialogue and help find a solution to his problem. This whole thing has turned into a mosh pit: It's loud, painful, and extremely hard to pay attention. There are plenty of editors who have been making positive contributions to this discussion, but there are others who are coming in and making pointless entries. At this point, I agree with N419BH; an RfC/U is the best course of action, and then escalate from there if needed. This discussion is starting to degrade, and from the looks of it, a solution will probably not appear here. Ishdarian 08:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

That's to be expected. It's ANI. But let's see the likely outcomes here:

1. Nothing. We haven't the power at ANI to formally rebuke an editor for messing up; a time-limited block would be pointless and punitive; and the editor has already apologised.
2. Involuntary desysopping. We can't actually do that either, it would be wildly OTT for a one-off of relatively limited damage (the block, wrong as it was, was reversed in two hours) and there's no precedent for it, but the usual ANI dramamongers are calling for it.
3. Voluntary desysopping. After Fastily's retirement, maybe folk think that hounding admins into retirement on ANI is a worthwhile tactic. We probably want to do everything possible not to encourage this.

The is pretty much unanimous consensus that Tiptoey screwed up here, that there are problems with that article which require a good deal of judgement when handing out blocks, and that Andy didn't do anything wrong regarding that article. He's been unblocked. There is no longer any immediate need for further administrative action here, and ANI is absolutely the last place that a proper analysis of how to prevent this happening again should take place. So I don't see that there's any point in keeping this open longer. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The one thing about this that bothers me is the plain acknowledgement that pretty much unanimous consensus that Tiptoey screwed up here, and the attitude is basically: "oh well, hopefully he won't make any more mistakes". This person is entrusted with quite a bit of responsibility, and all of this certainly destroys any trust that I have in him. Arbcom is most certainly not going to do anything about this, since he's (heavily) associated with them. The completely dismissive attitude that Tiptoey has is completely understandable here, considering all of the protection that he obviously has. So, is this guy protected, and untouchable?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Tiptoey is not untouchable. We can make the "oh well, hopefully he won't make any more mistakes" a bit more formal as the official closure of this thread. Then if this happens again, we can go to ArbCom, point to this discussion and the new incident. Then 1 + 1 = desysopping by ArbCom. ArbCom won't protect anyone when presented with a clear cut case, that would undermine their credibility and may lead to ArbCom being abolished (obviously, if many editors and Admins get fed up with ArbCom, ArbCom cannot exert its authority on this project). Count Iblis (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This seems like empty rhetoric. I've already outlined what we could do here. In reality, the "do nothing" option carries a significant amount of baggage in terms of grudges community memory, and if screwups occur in future this will inevitably be taken into account. We don't really have any "slap on the wrist" remedies of any formality below ArbCom. We've gone without such for a decade. ANI is not the place to discuss introducing them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

IRC

I've been informed that this block germinated from an IRC discussion. Is that accurate? Can we get logs, please? Hipocrite (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

? So somebody invoked the sneaky "off the record old pals act" to consider administrative action which turned out to be a travesty of a decision to block a good faith editor? Block them both for the same time that ATG was blocked so that their record is tarred to the same degree. Shameful. Leaky Caldron 11:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Worrying indeed. How were you 'informed'? SmartSE (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Fluffernutter#Question - there is no diff on wiki. - Youreallycan 14:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This puts the whole thing in an entirely different light. Given that Fluffernutter (who had previously edited the article - reverting POV-pushing - but had at no point attempted to engage in the ongoing talk-page discussions) not only instigated the block, but then chose to repeat the false assertions regarding edit-warring first on my talk page, and then in this discussion, without making her prior involvement clear, I have to call for the scope of this discussion to be extended to Fluffernutter's bad-faith actions, which clearly precipitated the affair, and have led to much of the subsequent discord. Regardless of the merits of Tiptoety as an admin, Misplaced Pages clearly doesn't need self-serving shit-stirrers like Fluffernutter. Or if it does, it can do without me, and hand over article content to the SPAs, magic teapot salesmen, and bleach-gluggers. Seth Finkelstein, in a somewhat toxic depiction of Misplaced Pages in The Guardian, once described it as "a poorly-run bureaucracy with the group dynamics of a cult". On the evidence presented here, he was right... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes - a user that had only reverted and not attempted discussion or posted to the article talkpage (User:Fluffernutter asked another admin off wiki to take action against users that had done all the things that User:Fluffernutter had not. The admin then took action and almost unanimous is that action was badly wrong (all reverted by other admins)- what a pile of trash this place is sometimes - the admin (User:Tiptoety) couldn't even apologize without being 'upity'. - and this is all we know ... what relating went on between them that encouraged User:Tiptoety to make this poor judgment, we don't know. .. personally, imo - they are both very poor administrators and I didn't support either of them at RFA and I still don't, and for such disruption as this, I support removing the bit from both of them. Good faith users need to know that they will not be abused by such poor administration using off wiki requests as this sorry episode. Youreallycan 15:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I've responded on my talk page and I would ask that people please stop conflating "asked for another admin to look at the article" and "ordered a henchman to do exactly what I wanted so I could pull the strings and secretly take over Misplaced Pages." One of those happened; the other didn't. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You should do your business on wiki then - In that aspect you failed completely. What admin action did you think was required then, blocking of the sockpuppets ?- Why didn't you attempt any on wiki or on talkpage discussion? - Youreallycan 16:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

All he did was ping an uninvolved admin to look at the issue. This is perfectly normal and IRC is probably the fastest way to find an admin. That's why the Admin channel exists on IRC in the first place. N419BH 16:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It was an editorial issue, there was no urgency. Leaky Caldron 16:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Never said there was. He pinged an admin to look into it. The admin who did utilized their judgement and blocked three people. Two of those people, in hindsight, shouldn't have been blocked. They were unblocked and the admin offered his apologies. Said apologies were rejected and now we have this dramafest at ANI and on ATG's talkpage. N419BH 16:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

@N419 "the fastest way to find an admin." you said. Sounds like urgency to me. Leaky Caldron 17:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

@User:N419BH - Your intense involvement out of nowhere editing is inexplicable imo - others have questioned in this thread, who are you a sock of - are you related to User:Fluffernutter in any way, are you a sock-puppet of User:Russavia ? Youreallycan 16:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• - Why should an admin that is involved in editing (only reverts) the article but has not made a single attempt to discuss the issue on wiki or on the talkpage ask another admin off wiki to have a look and take action? - Youreallycan 16:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see a "non-editorial only" restriction in point two of meta:IRC/wikipedia-en-admins/Guidelines. The channel is allowed for open requests to review actions or situations on-wiki. I also don't see Tiptoety claiming off-wiki consensus as a grounds for the block. He took full responsibility for his actions and did not claim to be representing a decision made off-wiki. More specifically, it was Fluff's choice to ask anywhere he desired for an independent review. Talk page, IRC, email, WikiReview, etc. MBisanz 16:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• One of the primary issues is that User:Fluffernutter's off wiki IRCAdmin request was his first and only attempt at anything other that reverting - that is not how its supposed to work - the resulting administrative action by the responder User:Tiptoety was below the standard required of an administrator - Youreallycan 16:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Why? As I've said, I don't see a specific ordering of "You must post on the talk page before you can request a review privately" in any guideline or description, but I haven't read them all in exhaustive detail. MBisanz 17:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Dude, your defending the indefensible - you go to the talkpage if you have issues - its the primary good faith location - in this case it didn't happen at all - You are defending a user (User:Fluffernutter) whose only input on wiki was to revert - no discussion in any way at all and whose actions resulting in this disruption. - Youreallycan 17:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm defending the ability to ask for an independent review in any broad-based forum. Just because something is the primary means to do it does not mean other means are unacceptable. If it was unacceptable, there would be a specific page describing talk page primacy and explaining how and when to seek other forums (Like noticeboards, listservs, IRC, etc.) MBisanz 17:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Bollocks. What the hell are article talk pages supposed to be for then? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• See here. They are one of at least three options for editors wishing to discuss an article. MBisanz 17:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• IRC and email should be considered after things already seem to not be going anywhere on the talk page. If it was done in this case instead of engaging the other involved editor(s) first, I have to agree with Leaky Cauldron at the top of this section, who refers to this as an "off the record old pals act". That is precisely what this looks like. Equazcion 17:21, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

• They should, but I don't see a rule saying they must. It's like the difference between getting a rename and abandoning an old account. You should get a rename, but it isn't prohibited that you just register a new account. MBisanz 17:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Just out of curiosity, if we are going to regard off-Wiki communications as valid here, how are we going to prove that there wasn't any discussion going on where an 'edit-war' is being alleged? (Not that this is relevant in this case, considering the fact that the discussion was going on on the talk page). AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• If you mean, how will we know of the neutrality of the off-Wiki communication, then by the declarations of the participating parties, other parties present, past records, etc. MBisanz 17:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• So where are the 'declarations' regarding this particular bogus block then? I've not seen any? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• User_talk:Fluffernutter#Question looks sufficient to me. MBisanz 17:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• That isn't a 'declaration', it is self-serving spin - and repeats the lie that I was involved in edit-warring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) There doesn't need to be rule expressly prohibiting this in order to question the action. We examine these things on a case-by-case basis. I'm glad there's no rule for it, and I also think in this case it was inappropriate. Equazcion 17:29, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Here's a crazy idea - why not log the IRC channels so when these types of things happen, at least the harmed parties can see what was said and who was involved. I'm sure the knowledge that there are logs will improve the tone and general behaviour there. I think the last time this was suggested, there were threats to indef block anyone who posted IRC logs on-wiki, but perhaps people have matured since then... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Editors have been threatened with physical violence for suggesting that IRC be logged. I don't think there's a lot of maturity in those parts. Skinwalker (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy, I understand that you are royally pissed at being blocked, and the consensus is supportive of the notion that the block was flawed. (I don't know whether that helps to mollify, or adds fuel to the fire.) You've received an apology, which was both belated, and perfunctory. You've stated, I think, that you aren't looking for a desysop. Can you identify what you would describe as a satisfactory outcome?

As a mild tangent, I glanced at your block log, and it looks long, but I think appearances are deceiving. I suspect the community is not disposed to expunging block records, but this looks like a good example where it may be warranted.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

What I'd like to see is Tiptoety and Fluffernutter complying with WP:ADMINACCT: "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Misplaced Pages-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed". And doing it here, with full disclosure of what exactly was said, and what actions either of them took before the block was made. Did Fluffernutter check the talk page history before contacting Tiptoety? Did Tiptoety check it? Only when we know what happened can we decide whether any further action is required - as I've said before, Tiptoety's edit record seems to suggest a reluctance to engage in talk page dialogue, which may indicate that he/she would be unwise to engage in admin actions beyond his/her usual fields: immediate reverts and warnings, checkuser matters etc, without taking a little more care. Fluffernutter needs likewise to accept that a more honest approach over this issue might have prevented much of the acrimony - and ensure in future to make clear any prior involvement in issues she is commenting on: we really need more transparency here. There is an ongoing discussion regarding clarifying/revising Misplaced Pages:Edit warring policy (see Misplaced Pages talk:Edit warring#slow burn edit warring and lack of warnings), which should address the matter, and hopefully, make this sort of thing less likely to arise again. And yes, I'd like the block struck from the record - particularly as some admins apparently seem to think that the existence of one block is sufficient reason to impose another. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Without understanding precisely how it would work, I would oppose expungement of blocks. Such a thing would be contrary to the practice of documenting just about everything we do and everything we undo. That said, at the moment, Andy's unblock has this comment: "General concensus seems to be that a block was not warranted". I would favor something more official, some agreed-upon designation for an unjustified block such that it would not only be clear (the comment is kind of mild) that the block was unjustified but also that policy prohibits it from being used against the editor for any purpose.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

So, in summary, this is yet another IRC failure, where one IRC bud asked another IRC bud to block a guy for him and he did it? Why are the buds still admins, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 10:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Hipocrite, can you just fucking stop wailing about IRC? 50.22.206.179 (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you mind logging in? Hipocrite (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the IP, but I will echo the IP's request. If you'd bother to actually read what Fluffernutter wrote, she said she just asked for review and didn't give directives for what to do. When you're an admin, this happens all the time; look at my talkpage for the number of instances I've been asked to look at Indian caste articles. That it happened on IRC (which incidentally, I really only am using for one very specific purpose, and have no intention of using it once that's fulfilled) doesn't change anything except the venue. Or is your insistence because you're running out of glue? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It would be a deadhorse if bad blocks and bad ideas didn't keep emanating from the IRCbuds month after month after month without any accountability. Why should I believe Fluffernutter, exactly, given that I have approximately zero trust from him related to the last IRCbud issue, where one of the buds threatened to make me breath through a straw for logging? Trust, but verify. Where are the logs, like the logs that exist of your talk page? They're kept secret, because IRCbuds like those taking action here would be disinfected by sunlight. Hipocrite (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

If you have an issue with the block (or in other cases deletions, protections, edits, etc.), then it is irrelevant whether or not it was discussed on IRC. The admin is always accountable for their actions, regardless of off-wiki communications - we all know that. If it was a bad block, it was a bad block. If it was a good block, it was a good block. IRC or any off-wiki communication has no effect on that, ever. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

"The admin is always accountable for their actions". Really - it doesn't look like it in this case. Regardless of where the communication took place, we still have had no proper explanation of what occurred, and Fluffernutter's actions in instigating the problem, but not even acknowledging this when trying to justify it (by repeating the same false claims first on my talk page, and then here). I am having second thoughts about whether desysoping might be worth looking at after all, given Fluffernutter's continuing refusal to explain her actions and justify them, per WP:ADMINACCT. Or are admins actually free to ignore policy when it suits their own personal interest? Her refusal to adequately explain how the events occurred is a violation of policy, beyond question, as was her non-disclosure of prior involvement when commenting on events. Why should anyone have any confidence in such an admin? I certainly don't... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

As someone who's normally satisfied by an action when I "flutternut" at the end, I must agree that going to IRC was a sub-optimal path to take. While there's some spirited shuck-and-jive to defend IRC above, it's feeble. Use on-wiki first: Nothing on the article talk page is a bad look, using IRC instead of ANI is a bad look. Please note that the emphasis is on "look," since we can't know what actually took place on IRC. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

3RR rules

I'm uncomfortable that as currently written the 3RR rules can be interpreted in a way that leads to blocks being applied without an attempt to resolve things in a more amicable manner. That isn't to say that I regard these particular blocks as ones that I would have done. But I would like to propose that as a response the the incident above, we shift the 3RR rules to a presumption that perceived breaches should usually be responded to with dialogue first and blocks as a last resort. So I've drafted a suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:Edit_warring#slow_burn_edit_warring_and_lack_of_warnings. ϢereSpielChequers 12:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI is a fucking joke

It is.Self-serving shit-stirrers like Fluffernutter can drag contributors over the coals here, but can admins actually be held to account? Clearly not. Lie through your teeth, pretend it never happened, and never admit to being wrong...

Give me one good reason why, after this ridiculous display of utter contempt for anything but her own ego, I should bother to continue to give a toss about Misplaced Pages? Clearly pompous self-serving amateur bureaucratics is more important than actually worrying about whether articles are sourced to anything other than snake-oil salesmen, tinfoil-hat merchants, and promoters of drain-cleaner as a cure for AIDS. "Oooh look, there's something that looks vaguely like an edit war" (if you can't be bothered to actually look at the evidence). Find some poor clueless admin-gnome to block everyone, then pile in afterwards with more accusations of editwarring that utterly ignore the fact that by any objective measure, you have been engaged in ten times as much 'edit warring' (by the dubious standards of the block) as the persons accused, and with no mention at all of the fact that you instigated it. Then walk away as if it was none of your business. Well Fluffernutter, let me make clear that the only reason I'm not describing you using a fine old Anglo-Saxon word for the female reproductive orifice is that I have more respect for AN/I (and the relevant organ, and the vast majority of those that have one) than you do. If Misplaced Pages needs you, I think it can do without me. Why I ever bothered to get involved in this ridiculous cult in the first place, I'm not sure... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Your block was overturned very quickly. Tiptoety was responsible for it, not Fluffernutter. Carry on in this vein though, and you'll get yourself a different kind of block. Why don't you get over it and move on? You're not doing yourself any favours attacking people like this. Bunnies! Leave a message 03:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

In fact saying that you would compare someone to a certain orifice, but you're not going to for whatever stupid reason, is pretty much the same as actually doing it. For shame. Pathetic insults like that should be beneath you. Bunnies! Leave a message 03:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to comment, please address the issue. Now is not the time to put on let's all be nice to each other hats. Johnuniq (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I am addressing the above issue. The above issue of Andy ranting quite nastily about another user. Sorry, but that's not okay, and it's hardly going to help the situation, is it? Bunnies! Leave a message 03:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

"Give me one good reason why I should bother to continue to give a toss about Misplaced Pages?" -> if the above rant is an example of your ordinary behavior and attitude here (and I can't tell as I've never had occasion to interact with you), then it would be contrary to everybody's interest to give you any reason to remain around here. Snowolf 03:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't all for naught. There appears to be consensus that the overturn was good and the original block bad. ANI can't make an admin admit wrongdoing, but when can you ever force someone to do that in life? All you can do about admins behaving badly is get the action overturned (which you did), and beyond that, show a pattern. At least you've brought this incident to light so it can be used that way in the future, if it ever needs to be. Equazcion 03:38, 24 Apr 2012 (UTC)

• Re: this thread is its entirety: To quote Data: . Softlavender (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Seamus (dog) article & User:Arzel

A user named Arzel has been doing everything in his power to destroy the article Seamus (dog) through abusive editing. When new information is added to article, he routinely removes it, irrespective of the legitimacy of the material. Since this article was created three months ago, Arzel has removed material at least twenty-five times (see list below). On the Talk page for the Seamus article, multiple editors has warned him not to remove material without cause. This week (on April 17, 2012), Arzel decided to remove all eight of the article's external links. I think some editors are becoming reluctant to add material to this article because Arzel arbitrarily tears it down. Debbie W. 05:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Instances where Arzel inappropriately removed material

22:43, April 20, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,360 bytes) (-301)‎ . . (This political ad is already included in the source in the corresponding section. Violation of WP:EL) (undo)

22:41, April 20, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,661 bytes) (-192)‎ . . (This article is not about the political advocacy against Romney. This EL is not about the dog. This EL violates WP:EL) (undo)

12:39, April 20, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,505 bytes) (-192)‎ . . (Improper EL. Not an official site for this article.) (undo)

22:39, April 17, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,611 bytes) (-237)‎ . . (This add nothing to the article that is not already in the main space) (undo)

22:37, April 17, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,848 bytes) (-260)‎ . . (This adds nothing that is not already in the article.) (undo)

22:36, April 17, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,108 bytes) (-254)‎ . . (Not wothy of main article, no reason to include a special EL. Undue Weight.) (undo)

22:35, April 17, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,362 bytes) (-275)‎ . . (Adds nothing that is not already in the article WP:EL Unneccessary links.) (undo)

22:33, April 17, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,637 bytes) (-301)‎ . . (WP:EL Pushing a point of view, not worthy of the main article not worthy of an EL) (undo)

22:24, April 17, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,850 bytes) (-149)‎ . . (Mitt made no such statement in the interview. Sawyer made the statement, but there was no indication of a response to the statement in the interview.) (undo)

21:56, April 17, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,999 bytes) (-196)‎ . . (Sneaky addition which is not notable.) (undo)

20:01, April 13, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,996 bytes) (-376)‎ . . (Non notable) (undo)

13:32, April 6, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,869 bytes) (-530)‎ . . (No evidence that either of these organizations are notable. One of them is simple a bunch of volunteers and is not a reliable source. WP:UNDUE) (undo)

10:49, March 27, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,374 bytes) (-292)‎ . . (non - notable trivia) (undo)

10:38, March 27, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,541 bytes) (-455)‎ . . (Anonymous second hand information is not what I would call very reliable information for a factual statement.) (undo)

10:26, February 19, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,449 bytes) (-445)‎ . . (→‎Political and legal response: POV Forking and Pushing. Debbie, you cannot use this artice as a WP:COAT for attacking Romney.) (undo)

13:54, February 15, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,310 bytes) (-549)‎ . . (→‎Political and legal response: Undue weight. This article has NOTHING to do with him or his movement.) (undo)

22:15, February 14, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,533 bytes) (-553)‎ . . (→‎Political and legal response: WP is not a newspaper. It was 25,000 "likes" the "protest" that caused this political article had more reporters than protesters (10). Undue weight.) (undo)

10:32, February 11, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,841 bytes) (-46)‎ . . (Non rs blog) (undo)

09:38, February 2, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,725 bytes) (-508)‎ . . (→‎Political and legal response: Remove POV push, unprovable conjecture.) (undo)

09:37, February 2, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,233 bytes) (-424)‎ . . (→‎Political and legal response: Remove merchandise plug. WP:ADVERT) (undo)

09:27, February 1, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,358 bytes) (-494)‎ . . (→‎Political and legal response: Remove NPOV conjecture and opinion.) (undo)

09:51, January 31, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,963 bytes) (-326)‎ . . (→‎Political and legal response: Original research. That source only talks about one site. Promotional for site as well.) (undo)

23:20, January 30, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,772 bytes) (-641)‎ . . (Undid revision 474156894 by JamesMLane (talk)Give me a break. Is this not politicized enough already?) (undo)

20:27, January 29, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,424 bytes) (-97)‎ . . (Undid revision 473955439 by Dwainwr123 (talk)I didn't say the picture was biased, only that it is not possible to verify it was Seamus from that source.) (undo)

• Thoughts as an observer (just checked the article; I'm definitely not a Republican, I'm a far-left liberal; didn't know about the dog; no previous opinion on the matter): (1) I don't see that Arzel "has been doing everything in his power to destroy the article", nor that his editing is "abusive", nor that he is removing material "without cause". And apparently editing "inappropriately" means editing you don't like. (2) In my opinion, the article is an extremely overblown political soapbox as it is, hardly deserves to exist (it should be a couple of paragraphs in the Romney article), and without the presence of editors such as Arzel would be even more egregious. Softlavender (talk) 06:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
• This appears to be a content dispute. Arzel has engaged on the talk page, and seems to be acting in good faith. As an example, one the the links removed was http://www.dogsagainstromney.com... In my opinion, this should proceed along the normal Dispute Resolution process and no administrative actions are justified at this time. Monty₈₄₅ 06:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that this is a content dispute. On April 17, Arzel removed all 8 externals links (ELs), including one that was an 8-page transcript of a Diane Sawyer interview with Mitt and Ann Romney. Transcripts are the type of material that normally are in external links. The final reason I posted on the board was yesterday's actions by Arzel. I added two ELs on April 20 -- ones for 'Dogs Against Romney', a site that has been in the news a lot for its criticism of Seamus incident, and 'About Mitt Romney', a site that defends Romney's treatment of the dog. Arzel removed the Dogs Against Romney link, but left the About Mitt Romney link. That's highly biased editing. Debbie W. 13:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I was going to remove both, but you accidentally incorporated an EL that was actually about Seamus. I also find it highly uncivil that you labeled all my edits as inappropriate when I clearly gave reasons and discussed these issues on the talk page. You returned the vilation of WP:EL twice without even discussing it. Arzel (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I have moved the AN/I notice you misplaced at the top of the page where it was not included in the table of contents, with a brief explanation. Dru of Id (talk) 06:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• I didn't look at the dog article but Arzel's participation on its talk page looks tendentious to me. In addition, looking at Arzel's overall edit history IMHO shows a long-term battleground editor and wikilawyer. Articles to which Arzel has contributed 20 or more edits: Fox News Channel: 172 edits, Tea Party movement: 144, Fox News Channel controversies: 138, Public image of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator): 127, Michele Bachmann: 116, RealClearPolitics: 92, Tea Party protests: 64, 2011 Wisconsin protests: 62, Bill O'Reilly (political commentator): 60, Seamus (dog): 42, Brian Kilmeade: 37, Political positions of John McCain: 36, Herman Cain: 36, James O'Keefe: 35, Tom Emmer: 34, Steve Doocy: 33, Matrix scheme: 32, Glenn Beck: 31, Gretchen Carlson: 31, Elizabeth Kucinich: 31, Restoring Honor rally: 31, Debbie Schlussel: 30, Joe the Plumber: 30, Media Matters for America: 30, Hydraulic fracturing: 29, Kevin James (broadcaster): 28, Scott Walker (politician): 26, John Boehner: 26, Sean Hannity: 25, Political activities of the Koch family: 24, Rick Santorum: 24, Meg Whitman: 23, The O'Reilly Factor: 23, Tim Pawlenty: 23, Koch Industries: 22, Mitt Romney: 21, Bob McDonnell: 21, Fox & Friends: 21, Keith Olbermann: 21, Political views of Bill O'Reilly: 21.

  Looking at the edit summaries in contribs gives a clearer picture of the edits. Arzel is versed enough at wielding WP policy that I don't see clearly outrageous individual diffs, but there's a lot of removals of sourced material (of varying quality) unfavorable to conservatives, some of which I'd call dubious, along with occasional insertions of stuff unfavorable to liberals. I believe this pattern fits the WP:TE description of editing that is editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. Others familiar with this sort of pattern might have further inferences to make. 64.160.39.210 (talk) 07:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

So, you've made exactly one edit on Misplaced Pages (deleting an External Link), and you are on ANI censuring an experienced and prolific and trackable editor who actually contributes to the encyclopedia and whose only "crime" seems to be right-leaning politics? Something doesn't smell right here. And you didn't even look at the article in question. Softlavender (talk) 08:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

We are all supposed to contribute neutrally regardless of our personal politics. Arzel isn't doing that, in my opinion. 64.160.39.210 (talk) 08:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Who is "we"? You've never contributed a single thing to Misplaced Pages. Softlavender (talk) 09:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they have. This is a highly knowledgeable editor who prefers to remain anonymous. Doc talk 09:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah right. Anyone who had a neutral opinion on the subject would not remain anonymous. Anyone remaining anonymous has something to hide and is indulging in de facto IP sockpuppetry. Softlavender (talk) 09:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Then either file your SPI or cut it out; now. And remember that SPI is not a fishing expedition. Your attitude towards anonymous editors is both wrong, and unwelcome (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I used to think the same thing about this editor, but many people know who this is, and it does not seem to be the case that he is a banned or blocked user. They choose to remain anonymous, and it's not against policy to do that. Doc talk 09:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Softlavender, IP editors are people, too! There is no "shame" or "inferiority" to editing from an IP address. Pesky (talk) 09:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Pesky, look at the posting history. This is someone in hiding. Softlavender (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Softlavender, you haven't made an edit to your talk page since July of last year, so I can appreciate that maybe you don't read it too often. I suggest you read it now and abandon this aspect of this thread. Doc talk 11:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

What political bent Arzel is of is irrelevant. His point is that this article is being used as a coatrack for general anti-Romney sentiment and five seconds of research would reveal that: the entire article is based on twelve hours of a dog's life spent sitting in the Romneys' roof rack. Debbie W's aim with this article is, per the talk page, absolutely clear: to use it to advertise the alleged animal cruelty of a current Presidential candidate. I'm astounded that the AfD which closed as a merge was reconsidered. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is not a coatrack. A coatrack is an article which 'ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject'. It is very clear from the first paragraph of the article that the article is about the dog, the 1983 road trip, and the subsequent media coverage: Seamus was a pet dog owned by Mitt Romney and his family. Seamus, an Irish setter, was a subject of media attention for Mitt Romney in both the 2008 presidential election and the 2012 presidential election because of a 1983 family vacation where Romney transported Seamus on the roof of an automobile for twelve hours. To be a coatrack, the topics in the article would have to only be tangentially related (e.g., a long discussion about the Methodist religion in an article about George W. Bush, who happens to be Methodist). That's not the case here. The dog, the 1983 trip, and any media attention are inherently linked together. Debbie W. 01:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The article is about one incident. It is not about a dog. Any editor remotely familiar with how we cover single incidents in a subject's life should know that we do not title articles about one incident by the name of the subject without further commentary. In the remarkably unlikely case that this article survives as a standalone incident in the long run (for now it appears that most are simply unaware of it, though seeing as the goal of the article is to use Misplaced Pages to attack Romney I imagine that will change) it should at least be titled 1983 Romney family roof rack incident or the like. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Partly because what you seem to be dismissing as a mere 12 hours is actually one important example of the man's character issues. And I think User:Arzel's point is to use any and every article (and policy) he can to push a conservative activist agenda. In this case he has actually claimed that the article is only about the dog: . In fact the dog is notable because of Romney so let's not pretend otherwise. El duderino (talk) 10:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Duderino is correct. Bill Clinton's time with Monica in the oval office took less than 12 hours, yet a lot of people would have thought that was an "important example of the man's character issues" even if he hadn't subsequently lied about it. In other words, Chris, how long the ride was is totally irrelevant. And I agree that editors who participate in the project in this way are a tremendous problem for Misplaced Pages: In the words of wp:coi, "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Misplaced Pages, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." It seems very clear to me that Arzel fits that description.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that our coverage of that subject is titled Lewinsky scandal and not Monica Lewinsky. As for the continued assertion that editors with a particular political bent shouldn't be editing articles on politics, I suspect if that rule were applied evenly then some of those calling for Arzel's head would be none too pleased themselves. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

El duderino hit the nail on the head: User:Arzel's point is to use any and every article (and policy) he can to push a conservative activist agenda. He has a very clear history of doing so for better than half a decade. (Another Anonymous - 24.98.87.175) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.87.175 (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• My hunch is that for the next seven or eight months, there's going to be quite a bit of this: , so be warned. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
• So, a user posts a lot on talk pages of articles on "conservative" topics, so therefore they are a right-wing editor, so therefore their edits to Seamus are destroying the article? That's some high-falutin logic here which in reality is not even at the level of a Freshman class in political science. I looked at a couple of the edits Arzel made, and I agree with the completely. Now guess where I stand on politics (keeping in mind that I wrote big chunks of .22 Cheetah). Drmies (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • It's more than a couple of edits. And due respect, I find your summary of the logical chain to be incomplete -- the issue we're discussing is more than his presence at conservative topics. As IP64/anon editor said above, it's about a pattern of selective inclusion and/or exclusion when those actions suits his purposes. I've seen and worked with other conservative editors who contribute more constructively and with much less battleground mentality than User:Arzel. The funny thing here and now is, sometimes I think he genuinely believes that he is helping the project by fighting against an endemic (liberal) bias. El duderino 00:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Totally agree. It doesn't matter what articles Arzel edits. But it does matter if he edits them in a manner which shows bias. Arzel repeated removed material from the Seamus article, including material which is non-controversial. He deleted an external link to a transcript of Diane Sawyer interview with the Romneys, on the grounds that it 'adds nothing' to the article. He deleted a photo of the dog where copyright permission had been granted, on the absurd grounds that it could not be proven that the picture was of Seamus. To make matters worse, he selectively chooses what to remove. On April 19, I added external links to 'Dogs Against Romney', which is very critical of the Seamus incident, and 'About Mitt Romney', which defends Romney's treatment of the dog. The next day, Arzel removed the first link, but kept the second. That biased editing. Debbie W. 01:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Whatever. Ohiostandard has (re-)added both links; as far as I'm concerned they should all be removed, but I respect their choice. There's little more to say here but this: your high-handed approach to this conflict failed to gain you traction for the proposition that this user "has been doing everything in his power to destroy the article Seamus (dog) through abusive editing." Next time, please tone down the rhetoric. It only antagonizes. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Indeed (as an editor who helped get Al Gore to GA). At least bringing this to ANI has highlighted the numerous editors involved with this article who shouldn't be editing in this area. Probably worth keeping this open until a further investigation into these editors' actions has been completed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh, believe me Drmies, we know where your allegiances lie :) Mark Arsten (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but you're not correct. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Darn, that was my second guess. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - it is a little silly to pretend this article is the biography of a dog when it's really about a political meme, though I'm not sure how to fix this. I did attempt to balance it somewhat by adding a mention of the conservative counter-meme ("Obama Eats Dogs") - my first attempt was summarily deleted by User:El duderino but I added back an expanded version and opened a discussion on the talk page. Perhaps some other title could be found to make clear it's about a political topic - some media outlets are calling this "Doggy Wars" but I'm not sure if that would work, really. Kelly 17:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  Perhaps the content should be merged to some subarticle of United States presidential election, 2012? Kelly 17:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe we should rename it along the lines of Santorum (neologism), which I'm guessing is a redirect right now and I have no idea where it goes. But the dog story isn't necessarily a story concocted to tarnish Romney's reputation, though it is undoubtedly repeated with that intent. I'm sitting at the table with some liberals and just made the most priceless Santorum joke, but repeating it here would be a BLP violation. Ah, sometimes I crack myself up. Happy editing in this minefield, Drmies (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I think this forum is being asked to consider a persistent bias in Arzel's editing patterns, not to make a content decision (which should have a much wider population for discussion). -Anon2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.87.175 (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I must admit I was a little suprised to see this section after signing on tonight. It seems to be largely driven by my romoval of the EL's which are clearly being used to support a point of view. In particular, the self-claimed official website of "dogs against romney", which by clear definition of WP:EL is in violation. The article is not about dogs against Romney and the website is not about Seamus. The website is nothing more than a political attack page against Romney. Debbie's insistance on including the website simply shows that she is trying to use WP to promote a political point of view. There have been some allegations that I am simply editing WP from a conservative biased point of view, and while I am more likely to remove POV material from conservative articles, I have also defended liberal articles as well. The primary difference is that there are far more liberal defenders on WP resulting in observation bias. No one can honestly claim that "Dog's against Romney" is an official website of Seamus and therefore not a violation of WP:EL In fact, none of the EL's, save for the Romney Seamus page is really about the actual title of the article. To say that I am an agenda driven editor when I am simply trying to uphold WP core policies is...well quite insulting. Arzel (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, I see also that Debbie has a conflict of interest with the Dogs against Romney website and has been in direct contact with the site creator. I think it is quite clear that she has a specific agenda regarding this issue. Arzel (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's policy on confict of interest requires disclosing any financial or personal relationships to the subject matter being discussed. I am not a member of Dogs Against Romney, and I have never met or talked to Scott Crider, the founder of Dogs Against Romney. I e-mailed Dogs Against Romney several times to obtain permission to use a picture of the dog that was posted on their website. I hardly see that as a conflict of interest. Debbie W. 04:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Call it what you want. You have been in direct contact with the website owner since you could not have been granted rights by Scott Cider under any other circumstances, and you filed this report after my removal of the site from the EL's. Call it what you will, but I think you are a little too close to the issue to have an objective view. Arzel (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages permissions department (permissions-en@wikimedia.org) has copies of my e-mails from Dogs Against Romney that were used to grant permission to use the photo. It consists of an e-mail from me asking for consent, an e-mail from them granting consent, a later e-mail from me asking for Creative Commons CC0 1.0 level of permission, and an e-mail from them granting it. If you want, contact the permissions office. Debbie W. 04:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Dog's Against Romney Since we are at it could we please gets some input from Admins regarding the Blog Dogs Against Romney regarding its use as an EL. I propose that it fails WP:EL#11 because it is a Blog and while it claims to be the offical site of dogs against romney, it is not the official site of Seamus. Its purpose is to complain about Mitt Romney and sell related merchandise to promote this view. It is also a work of Satire written from the point of view of a fictional dog called "Rusty". It may also violate WP:BLP since much of the content attacks a living person(s). Arzel (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• This is nothing but election year horseshit. Bring the article about the unelected candidate's dog from the 1980s to AfD and see if it is judged to be an encyclopedic topic. If it passes there, which is shouldn't, THEN start topic-banning the POV warriors by the fistful. Carrite (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It's already gone through AFD. SÆdon 20:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It's been TO AfD but not THROUGH AfD — a NO CONSENSUS close. Somebody should bring it again and this thing should be shipped away in a honey bucket. Letting Democratic POV crap in only provokes Republican POV crap. Carrite (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

First, all caps is just pointless and annoying. Cut it out.

Second, it has been through AFD, and No Consensus is a valid close. If you want to take it to AFD again, by all means. It might be a good idea to let this ANI finish though, or it gives the appearance of forum shopping. — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I know of many articles which are locked down in a junk or POV state by POV wiki-lawyers. In the few where I've seen Arzel , Arzel was the one trying to FIX the problem. North8000 (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

That would be a very subjective opinion not born out with facts. We could easily provide (literally) hundreds of examples of bias in editing, double standards, and outright misrepresentation by Arzel spanning half a decade. He has outwardly declared his belief that Misplaced Pages is full of "liberals" and "liberal bias", so I have no doubt he feels justified in his edits. I don't believe that is true (after all, facts have a well known liberal bias), but even if Arzel's claim of "defending liberal articles" were true, the statistics don't add up... one or two instances of "defending liberal articles" doesn't overcome the thousands of examples of conservative bias. At the end of the day, any thorough examination of his edits clearly demonstrates tendentious editing. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that wikipedia has any mechanism (or constitution) to deal with a tendentious editor who is careful to play by the rules. -anon2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.87.175 (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous complaints have little value, why not show your WP face, rather than hide behind your obvious multitude of IP's so we can judge your edit hisotry as well. At least I am not hiding anything...unlike yourself. Arzel (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous editing is just as welcome here as non-anonymous editing and there is nothing even close to a requirement that anyone register an account. This is a long standing WP tradition dictated by the WMF. It is not true that anonymous complaints have little value and the arguments of any person can be judged on the merits of the argument itself and not who is making them. Note that I am not commenting on the substance of the edit, only that it is perfectly fine to edit as an IP SÆdon 00:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Bullshit! Calling out somebody for alleged POV behind the screen of an IP address isn't "anonymous editing," it is anonymous denunciation. Come out and identify yourself or shut your fucking defamatory mouth, Mr. 24.98.7235480924350=92345. Carrite (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Editing anonymously is my right, and is intended to force you to deal with the substance of the issue brought to ANI instead of attacking those who seek assistance. Thank you for the assistance in demonstrating my point. -A2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.87.175 (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You are a coward, go troll somewhere else. Arzel (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

What the hell? This is not an elementary school playground, you are not (or should not, in any event, be) the class bully, and playground taunting is screamingly inappropriate. The anon IP is exactly freaking right that he is allowed to comment - as any editor might - and allowed to participate in ANI discussions - as any editor does. May I ask what you would possibly do with the editor's real identity, if indeed he has a registered name? WP:NPA doesn't have an escape clause where anon IPs are concerned. Ravenswing 05:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This is seriously unacceptable behavior from both Carrite and Arzel. And using terms like "defamatory" is getting close to legal threat language. You two may not like that WP policy - fully backed by the WMF to the point where they rejected a community call to require registration - but it's a huge part of WP. You both need to calm down or an admin is going to bring down the ban hammer. SÆdon 05:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Better? Carrite (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Very, very slightly better, yes, thanks. SÆdon 05:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

NB: "Editing anonymously is my right..." Four career edits, all to this thread. See: Poison pen letter. Carrite (talk) 05:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be a proxy account which means that it's likely a dynamic IP. Either way it doesn't matter; one edit or a million, the IP has as much right as you do to comment. Please cease this line of reasoning. SÆdon 05:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I will not have my history be judged by someone who refuses to show his history. That person is a coward, and if they have a problem with being called a coward they should go troll somewhere else. User names are already pretty anonymous, to be afraid of even having an anonymous user name says quite a lot. Arzel (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Both you and Carrite need to drop this line of bullying. Argue the substance of the edits, not the editor. It makes no difference, in terms of the piling NPA violations, whether the editor is registered or not. If you continue, you're going to get blocked for this without consideration to the original accusations. Stop it. Note that I am not commenting on the specific complaints, but reserve the right to in the future. Dave Dial (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I am going to get blocked because an anonymous IP jumper is leveling accusations against me from several different IP's and I call him out on it? Seriously, this is what has become of WP? Arzel (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

No, if you are blocked then it would be because you continue to personally attack another editor even when having been repeatedly told not to do so. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

But an IP jumper is free to attack me, where is the justice in that? Arzel (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

First, "justice" isn't something Misplaced Pages is after. Demanding justice isn't going to earn you any points.

Second, the IP voiced an opinion that you are editing in a POV manner. Your response was direct insults and to repeat those insults after being warned. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Heck, if I had the mop, I'd block you myself for your repeated insults in this ANI alone, Arzel, because it's plain that you don't get it. Anon IPs are protected by WP:NPA just the same as any other editor, and their statements are evaluated on the merits, the same as any other editor. If the IP fears retaliation ... well, gosh, how could he possibly have come to that conclusion, eh? Ravenswing 18:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Good god, I just stepped through a random sample of the last 1,000 mainspace edits of Arzel. Based on that alone, it is obvious that the concerns stated above are completely valid and need to be addressed. Since Arzel and his pal Carrite viciously attack responding editors, I wish to remain anonymous. just becaus we are anonymous does not mean our points arent valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.37.214.254 (talk) 11:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Provide a point and we can see if it has any value. A single edit to come here and attack me is simply the sign of a coward. Arzel (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you think NPA is limited to launching them at named accounts? You would be wrong if you thought that. Stop calling this user a "coward". You are wrong about anonymous users. Doc talk 14:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Why are you defending any anonymous IP jumper using several different IP's to attack my character? Arzel (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm only pointing out that we have allowed, and always will allow, IP jumpers to exist here. Some are good, some are bad. Some use it for gnomish edits that undeniably improve the encyclopedia, and some abuse it for nefarious reasons. We can't class a group of editors so easily. If you think they are evading scrutiny, and you know who they are, you can file a SPI. Doc talk 14:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I nominally have little problem with IP's, however, this anon is judging me while hiding behind a cloak of multiple IP's. It is the same person trying to give the illusion of many. You are defending that? Arzel (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The fact that we even have Misplaced Pages article about a dog riding on the roof of a car for a few hours shows how easily the system is gamed. North8000 (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Ummm... didn't you just say the exact same thing in a thread below here? Maybe it's me... Doc talk 12:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Ummm, don't we have two threads going on this same article? The answer to both is yes. North8000 (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

calling me (and the other anons) "cowards" only shows the strong desire to attack others instead of dealing with the issue. i am not very familiar with ANI, but somebody should really look into Arzel. his bias is systemic and long running, and the examples of it are pretty self evident. i can gladly give TONS of examples, but it seems to me that any random reading of a few hundred pages of his contributions through february (and a random few pages from a few years ago that i looked at) shows pretty obviously the problem. his edits are very clearly ALWAYS pushing a conservative agenda, and he bullies other users and lawyers rules to always benefit his point of view. if you want specific examples, what would help move this along the most? article edits? talk pages? tell me what to do to get someone to get serious about dealing with this, and i will do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.37.214.254 (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Because you are One Anon, not many. The probabilistic pattern of the Anon's editing here strongly suggests that they are from one person, or a couple of persons working together offline. The odds that the Anon's attacking my character here would all have almost no other edit history is extremely unlikely. You did not all just come here by chance and have the same thing to say. Arzel (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Then file an SPI, don't keep poking the hornet's nest. Look, I know the natural instinct is to defend yourself, but each reply you make is digging the hole deeper. Just ignore them or file an SPI. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Most of Arzel's contributions to articles consist of deletions of other editors' work. In very few, if any (I've never seen any) cases does s/he add complete references or contribute sourced statements to articles. Most contributions are statements are unsourced, POV opinions, personal attacks, and largely inaccurate wiki-lawyering on talk pages. The destruction of content and senseless and endless criticism of other editors is very offputting and discourages people from spending their time building content. Other editors have tried to educate, mentor, coach, and educate Arzel, but s/he has not been responsive to this. Some responding to this ANI may be choosing to remain anonymous due to Arzel (and perhaps his friends') retaliatory editing behavior. This is my only contribution to this particular thread. I'll use the same IP if I make additional contributions to this thread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.7.135 (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

When there are enough people adding shit to articles, it becomes a full time job to be a pooper scooper removing the same. A job unfortunately that somehow ends up tainting the person doing the dreadful work with a foul smell by which people seem to judge rather than the actual quality and necessity of the work itself. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Complaints from IP editors at ANI or related pages have zero merit or value. They should be hatted, reverted or ignored, and the drama will be cut in half around here. The "destruction of content" rhetoric by this one is reminiscent of some of our dearly departed Article Rescue Squad indef blockees. Tarc (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • As pointed out above, this is not correct. IPs have the right to voice their opinion here, which admins can consider. Now, if they're trolling, socking or conducting meatpuppetry, they can be blocked and comments struck. — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
    • And as I will point out to you now, that is exactly what they are doing; trolling. The comment by the one below readily admits to editing via IP to avoid identity detection. That's underhanded, deceptive, and renders its comments irrelevant. Tarc (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
      • from SOCK " the use of multiple accounts" yep "to deceive or mislead" seems like what this is "other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards and policies is called sock puppetry (often abbreviated in discussion as socking) and is not allowed. Sock puppetry can take on several different forms: Creating new accounts to avoid detection" very clearly YES. "Editors who use unlinked alternative accounts, or who edit as an IP address editor separate from their account, should carefully avoid any crossover on articles or topics, because even innocuous activities such as copy editing, wikifying, or linking might be considered sock puppetry in some cases " potentially yes "and innocuous intentions will not usually serve as an excuse." and again, yes."Avoiding scrutiny: Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions" umm yes. And under Legitimate uses I am not seeing anything that applies. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Once again Arzel, with a little assistance, has turned this into an attack on others instead of addressing the issue. Personally, I am a well-known editor (with many more edits than arzel) who wishes to avoid the unfortunately successful trick of avoidance ad hominem. I have edited from this singular IP only; responses above from other IPs are presumably other editors with similar reasons. If our statements are read as trolling or inaccurate, simply ignore us, however I believe the record speaks for itself - Arzel's blatant focus on conservative advocacy (of which there are multiple ANI filings in the past) should be compelling enough reason to justify the discussion. I am willing to verify my identity to a trusted admin who understands my wish to avoid attack whilst keeping this discussion focused on the issue. -anon2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.87.175 (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Completely uninvolved and impartial observer chiming in: The initial concern over one article seems to have morphed into a review of a particular editor's editing. An administration action may be necessary. What is the next step? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC).

Infobox classical composer TfD closure

{{Infobox classical composer}} was deleted as "…redundant to {{Infobox person}}. Unused…" last December, after a short but unanimous discussion which was open for eight days. It was recently recreated, out of process (e.g. no deletion review), and my speedy nomination (under {{db-g4}}) was contested, so I raised another TfD discussion. SarekOfVulcan has now speedily closed that, after less than 24 hours, alleging bad faith (and perhaps believing the false claims including that "a week ago, deleted it almost without discussion" and that "the deleting admin agreed that the deletion procedure was improper"). I refute the "bad faith" accusation (there are and will be unfounded ad hominem comments from those with opposing views), and suggest that the community should be allowed to discuss the matter properly. (As a courtesy, I should mention that I shall not be able to post here again for around 24 hours from now.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't believe any false claims - I reviewed the history and previous discussions before closing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Which makes your action and comment all the more inappropriate Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

If the template was deleted in the past in a TfD decision and then randomly recreated, you are fully allowed to start another TfD on it, per past consensus. Sarek, you are completely out of line here. Silverseren 22:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. Silverseren 22:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You shouldn't lie about closures, Andy. The current discussion was very obviously a speedy keep. Silverseren 22:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Your first comment was the sensible and correct one. With only nine comments, mostly from members of the canvassed projects, in around 21 hours, its hardly a speedy keep, and that was not the disputed reason given for closure, as I point out above. I have not lied. What makes you suppose otherwise? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy -- please -- this was exactly the sort of behavior that got you banned for a year here. Let's not do this again; it's time-wasting drama and completely unnecessary. We actually have a workable compromise infobox! How about working with us in the Composers and Classical music Wikiprojects as colleagues rather than enemies? Honestly, it's possible. Antandrus (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it was not. Why don't you address the issue I raise, rather than attempting to smear? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for evidence which confirms the veracity of my initial report here. An additional diff of relevance shows that {{Infobox musical artist}} has been the Terry Riley article since 2 December 2006 (yes, 2006!). It has caused no reported issues in that time. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It may confirm what you reported, but what you didn't report is highly relevant as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

After reviewing the evidence, I believe Sarek's close of the TfD was absolutely proper. I would not necessarily say it was a "bad faith" nomination, but reverting a template's use after that template has received extensive discussion and then immediately nominating for deletion on the basis of the template not being used can give that impression. That said, there was adequate consensus to keep the template regardless of whether the nomination was in good or bad faith. Rlendog (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI timing

Pigsonthewing proposed topic ban

It appears that Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) has issues mischaracterizing matters that he brings to AN or comments on here and this can mislead editors reviewing his requests. See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and above. It has also been found by Arbcom in the past that Pigsonthewing is unwilling to follow the Wiki way of doing things 1 and mischaracterizes matters 2. What would the community think of either banning PoTW from commenting at AN/ANI or banning his participation in TFD/MicroFormat discussions (those appear to be the source of most of his disputes)? MBisanz 19:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose banning PotW from Microformat discussions, as that's where he's done some of his best work. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

How would you feel about the AN/ANI ban if it turns out that his problem is in discussing his project with the wider wiki community? MBisanz 19:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Abstain, since this is a subthread of an ANI he's raised about me.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I quite agree PotW needs to be banned from something, possibly from the whole project, and I definitely don't think the problem can be localized simply by banning him from some forms of AN participation. His problems are far more general and spread far more widely. The general issue here is that PotW seems to be fundamentally unable to let go of a matter. Once he's become fixated on something – be it the birth date of some semi-notable radio moderator, or the question of what infobox to put into classical composer articles – he will continue keeping that dispute alive across any number of pages, literally for years, confronting any number of other editors about it, fighting out spin-offs of spin-off conflicts through one venue after another, and just never let go, no matter how obvious it is that there is no consensus for his position. Right now, he's at another spin-off dispute at Template talk:Infobox classical composer, and is again accusing some other guy of "dishonesty" over yet another side issue. Since all these disputes somehow indirectly appear to be related to his great project of infoboxes and "microforms", and since this pattern of conflict-seeking seems to be a very very deeply entrenched personality matter, I am afraid we will have little choice but to either put up with it and let him continue everywhere, or ban him from the project completely. My choice would be the second. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
• My choice unfortunately is also the second. This is a collaborative project, and his attitude is profoundly anti-collaborative, at least every time I've run into him. I wish I could grant him an "a-ha!" moment where he sees that he's actually the cause of his own problems, by making war on people rather than collaborating with them, but my hopes are slim. I'm open to other ideas on how to proceed. It's a shame because he's so talented at what he does. Antandrus (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
• Although I have read much of the previous controversies, I didn't participate. While I have no simple solution, I have to say that I have reservations about this one. I'm afraid we would just exporting the drama to another venue where the pattern would start all over again. Unless there is something particular about this board that causes all the problems, banning him from here isn't likely to solve the problem. A bit strong, but this is akin to the police giving a homeless person a one way bus ticket to another city. You move the problem to a different place but it doesn't go away. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 23:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
• Well, this seems like that awkward situation where instead of a topic ban, the community believes a site ban is the only way to end the disruption. Should I just copy this over to WP:AN or can I find an uninvolved admin to close it here on ANI? MBisanz 14:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "3 editors" <> "the community". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
    • To be clear, I didn't say I was ready to site ban him, I said "I have no simple solution" (banning == simple). Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. At to site banning, I remain neutral, not committed. I still have no alternative to ANI banning, but as I stated, feel it would only serve to push the problem to a different board. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 17:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Hang on a minute; this is starting to take on the appearance of a witch-hunt. Have you actually looked at the diffs Matthew presented? They are from years ago - the ArbCom links are from 2007 and 2005! The more recent ones seem to be cataloguing Andy's attempts to raise problems that he perceives here, and getting short shrift from editors who don't understand a technical issue. Now I'll admit that I've "crossed swords" with Andy on technical issues, but that has never gone beyond robust discourse. On the other hand I've also found him most amenable to collaborative work - see how WP:HLIST was developed for an example. His technical skills and understanding are valuable to the project, and we need to be looking for ways of helping established editors overcome problems and concentrate on constructive work, not crude bans and blocks in these circumstances. I see that WP:Requests for comment/Pigsonthewing dates from 2005. Has any other RFC occurred in the intervening 7 years? --RexxS (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• I would be interested in how you explain thatthis, this, or this, from this month, show evidence of POTW's committment to, and participation in, the Wiki editing method of civil community discussions? MBisanz 17:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Well, if you insist. I've already commented at Template_talk:Infobox_classical_composer#Dishonest_comment_in_TfD_summary_box that Andy is expressing himself too forcefully for my taste, but you have to admit that he was right that the {{tfd end}} comment "delete, but decision was later reversed by deleting admin because of lack of notification of interested parties and discussion" simply did not accurately characterise the closing admin's subsequent comments: "Reviewing the debate, it looks like the main issue was that it wasn't being used. I actually moved it to "Misplaced Pages:Infobox composer/draft" to allow for further discussion, and to preserve the page history. It was subsequently deleted there by another admin. I will restore it to User:Ravpapa/Infobox composer. I will leave it up to you to decide what to do with it after that". I think Antandrus ought also to bear some responsibility for the unnecessary warring going on there.
• I'm sorry, but given that Future Perfect at Sunrise made a controversial block of Andy quite recently, he really isn't the best person to be issuing warnings and threats of ArbCom on Andy's talk page. Are there really no other uninvolved admins around to talk to Andy in a less confrontational manner? Nobody is going to condone Andy going over the top in response, but do you seriously believe that "I strongly recommend you stop issuing warnings over content disputes in which you are involved, especially while discussion is ongoing on talk pages; and stop ignoring the findings of the RfC which found that systematic removal of infoboxes would be disruptive. Your unwarranted and out-of-process block of me regarding Hawkins resulted in you being criticised and subsequently undoing it; and the topic ban proposal which it led to twice found no consensus." is so far out of court as to warrant a ban?
• Are you seriously putting forward this: ""If this is the reason for your insistence…" - It isn't. Also, your proposal is both technically and logistically unworkable. Any local consensus in the classical music project is, as has been pointed out many times, not least in the outcome of that project's RfC, and core Misplaced Pages policy, unenforceable in articles. Matters regarding claims of optimal human readability are best determined through measurement such as those as carried out by our accessibility and usability projects, not the asserted aesthetic preferences of individual editors." as evidence of a breach of the Wiki editing method of civil community discussions?
• You've always struck me as being a very fair and responsible editor, and I'm willing to give way if I'm proven wrong, but are you sure that an insistence on banning a productive editor is the best course right now? --RexxS (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• My first interaction with POTW was over three years ago here. Since then, I've seen him crop up time and time again pushing his POV on microformat codes by mischaracterizing other people's words when they disagree with them or curtly insulting them for not understanding him. I've seen him at protected template requests declaring something is horribly broken and needs to be changed, when it is just his opinion that a certain format should be used. I've seen him here announcing that someone is grievously violating policy, when they simply disagree with his technical opinion. Looking back further before my first interaction with him, I see a nearly decade long track record of an inability to communicate with people and accept that consensus of the Wiki community is what matters for decision-making, not experts (as he claims in the third diff) or other people with particular agendas that they wish to import into the Project. The acerbic tone he does it with and his inability to temper it over such a long period of time of feedback is what has convinced me a ban is appropriate. MBisanz 19:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
• I had forgotten about this conversation where he kept insisting on getting a bot approved while refusing to link to consensus for the bot task. MBisanz 23:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose – all the sanctions suggested are completely ludicrous. The vast majority of Andy's edits since his return years and years ago from a 1-year block have been positive and uncontroversial. And the fuss about composer infoboxes is a storm in a teacup as the classical music project seem to insist on (a) no infoboxes; (b) the retention of a specific infobox not to use. Oculi (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Suggestion. I think a site ban is too harsh a punishment. I do think a topic ban from all info box related discussions is warranted.4meter4 (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Ridiculous proposal. Show us something recent and relevant. Fasttimes68 (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support any sanctions that prevent the disruption caused by PotW. Since he is right, it follows that the silly people who actually write the articles but who disagree with him are wrong, and must be opposed, literally for years. More evidence would probably be needed to achieve a sanction, but I am recording my opinion in hope that PotW will take the hint and leave content creators alone. Johnuniq (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Let's not make this a "content creation" battle, not least because that would be as fallacious (and damaging to the community) as it always is. Interaction problems here have nothing to do with what namespace one chooses to work in most often. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Have you seen the underlying issues? Some content builders have chosen to not decorate articles on classical composers in a manner that complies with PotW's standard. The content builders are then harrangued literally for years. Of course it's done with all the CIVIL boxes ticked, and there are plenty of helpful links to WP:OWN and other pages intended to poke the content builders. It's totally unnecessary, and it drives content builders away. Johnuniq (talk) 03:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
      • What I'm saying is that it isn't healthy to frame it as "Andy versus content builders" as if a) he doesn't build content and b) his interaction with "content builders" is universally negative. "Andy versus the composers project on infoboxes" is a far more accurate frame for this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm finding it a little extreme to be suggesting this. Ok, so I haven't had a lot of interaction with the user in question, but from my perspective, it seems that some people now want to persecute (I do not intend any insult with this word... it may be a bit strong, but I'm tired and can't think of a better word at the moment) a user who is perhaps trying to push his own point to forcefully (it seems, with regularity), or maybe someone who takes WP:BOLD or WP:IAR a little too far. But banning him, either from topics or the project, doesn't really help, seeing as the user has also demonstrated very helpful abilities. A ban seems to me to be simply a way of saying "go away, I don't like you," which doesn't seem to me to be an appropriate way of resolving issues like this. This isn't to say I endorse the manner in which PotW tends to pursue his opposers, but rather that I feel the proposed actions are not the right sort of action to take. Brambleclawx 03:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. It disturbs me that so many admins seem to be willing to sweep the problems created by PotW under the carpet simply because he is highly productive in other places. I hope that this discussion will not result in no action being taken to curtail PotW's actions. It would be akin to endorsing his negative behavior from the admin board. Do we want to send the mesaage that as long as you are valuable in some places we'll tolerate disruptive behavior in other places? Further, as far as I can tell PotW sees nothing wrong with any of his tactics, and they show no signs of stopping. This pattern of disruptive behavior has been going on for years, and is only likely to continue. If nothing is done here and now, then ANI is only likely to get more future complaints.4meter4 (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • To be honest, I'm not seeing much the admins can do at this point. There is nothing immediately blockable, and there doesn't seem to be a consensus for any topic bans. — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• Huh, I re-emerge from inactivity today because I'm about to get auto-demopped, and lo and behold, POTW is back on ANI again. Why am I not surprised? For heaven's sake, people, I took this guy to ArbCom many years ago over the classical music infobox debacle, and here he is again, causing trouble over the exact same topic because he thinks he can get away with trolling the exact same people because time has passed. Last time he got banned for a year over this. Can we please, for the love of god, topic-ban him at least this time? If not from micro-formats and his beloved boxen, then at least from anything classical music related. I think I speak for everyone who edits these articles when I say that we are sick to our back teeth of POTW, who has caused no end of grief. He is not doing this in good faith; he is doing this to provoke and because he is simply incapable of giving up on a fight. This is the very definition of tendentious editing. It's beyond farcical that a year-long ban from ArbCom was not enough to keep him away from this area. Moreschi (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban part 2

From anything classical music related, as per my above post. . Moreschi (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support. This to me would be the bare minimum response that can and should be done. Otherwise we may need to bring PotW back before arbcom for going back to his old ways.4meter4 (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I've been looking at the background to the classical music infobox dispute and it didn't take many minutes to find this sort of edit, where the date of birth, age, genre, and years active were removed by replacing the previously adequate infobox with inferior information. If this is typical of the problems Andy is complaining about, we should be encouraging him to do more in this area, not removing him from the topic so that those sort of damaging edits can be made unchallenged.

• That's a highly cherry picked comment. One can easily add several examples of infoboxes Andy Mabbett has added that are factually inaccurate and stripped of essential nuance. See the Marian Anderson article history for example.4meter4 (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Cherry picked"?? Well what about this one then? which removed genre, instruments, and labels - he is famous as a minimalist and yet that's gone from the infobox which is supposed to give an overview at a glance. Are you prepared to defend that as well as the previous one?
• Or this one? where we lost Scott Joplin's place of birth, place of death, years active and the fact that he was known for ragtime? or are those the sort of things you think visitors to his page wouldn't be looking for?
• Cherry picked, indeed. How about you strike that ad hominem garbage and start taking in an interest in the actual articles? Those two diffs above need reverting to restore the useful information, and you could do it as easily as I. --RexxS (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• And I might as well call you on your smear of Andy above. This is how the Marian Anderson looked after Andy replaced the picture with an infobox. Take a look at it. Just what is "factually inaccurate" there? I'm completely agnostic on whether to have an infobox or not, but even I can see that your claim is baseless. Wouldn't you also agree it is a little bit rum to be accusing Andy of "stripping of essential nuance" while you are defending others who replace one infobox with another containing even less information? Who's doing the stripping of essential nuance here? Or is Scott Joplin's association with ragtime an inessential nuance, perhaps. --RexxS (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• My qualms over the infobox at the Anderson article involve the description of the voice as a musical instrument. An instrument by definition is something non-biological outside of the body which is used to make music. A singer is never refered to as an instrumentalist. A singer is called a vocalist. As for your other complaints, I am not here to defend others actions which I may or may not agree with. I have not edited the Joplin article or contributed to it in any significant way. I also don't have it on my watchlist. Those issues should be discussed at that article. 4meter4 (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support Seeing his conduct at Talk:Terry_Riley#Infobox continues to show he doesn't get the community editing process in music articles and has no interest in learning it. I do not dispute that some of his edits are useful, but his usefulness does not outweigh his disruption. MBisanz 01:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• In light of Moreschi's comment, I realize I may have sought relief in the wrong forum, I have asked for clarification at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FPigsonthewing. MBisanz 02:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Hurz4711 conflict of interest

User:Hurz4711 is a new user. Their first ten or so edits were to work on article for an ecommerce application called Lightning Fast Shop in their sandbox (see history). The created the article, which was then speedily deleted (Lightning Fast Shop). In response they then went on to propose deletion for seven other ecommerce applications listed at List of free and open source eCommerce software. I reverted these, citing a conflict of interest, but the user has since restored the proposals. My addition to the talk pages was incorrect in that the user has not added deletion notices to every rival application, leaving a few intact, but it does seem a clear case of a single-issue user adding a page of something they're connected with, and then attempting to interfere with rival pages as a result of their's being removed. Greenman (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Clearly a tantrum, and as described. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 19:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
• How about evaluating these prods on the merits? Is it not possible that this new user has now become aware of WP policies because of their recent experiences? I took a look and Hurz4711 may have a point. Here is the list of articles in question: VirtueMart; osCMax; Interchange (software); Bots (edi); Batavi (software); Ubercart; and Arcavias.WTucker (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Fasttimes68 (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• I forgot to mention that Greenman neglected to inform Hurz4711, but I took care of it. Then someone knocked at the door, distracting me for a while. I'm not saying their PROD list is without merit, but it is amazing how some editors can have an epiphany when it comes to deletion policy once an article they created is deleted, and suddenly tag anything similar. Since the circumstances are questionable and the content is as well, AFD might be a better option than PROD, to put more eyes on them. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 20:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks Dennis, although I had added a notice on his page - see this diff. The duplicate has since been removed by another editor. Greenman (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  I do not disagree. I do disagree with stomping on a new user who has just had an epiphany, though. Regardless of their motivation, if their argument has merit, it should be considered. This is more likely to develop a productive editor for the future than closing down their early attempts without evaluation.WTucker (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  Not completely sure anyone stomped here. I see 6 hours difference from his last sandbox entry and his article deletion, although I don't have access to know how long the article was around before being tagged. His action still appear to be very "reactionary" (if you prefer a more neutral term), even if there might be merit to some of his tagging. I was hoping Hurz4711 would speak up here, as I would like to hear their perspective. Even granting that the editor genuinely had an epiphany (a very generous assumption) his timing and potential COI issues justify bringing the issue here. We do agree on AFD as the better choice (unless there is reason to believe that the tag is clearly in error), which is good, as we don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. I would prefer someone even less involved make that determination and send them off, assuming no one objects after a time, but I have no issue if you prefer to do that yourself. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 21:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  We are basically in agreement. I do think that reverting the PRODs without evaluation; bringing them to ANI; and then describing the user's actions as a "tantrum" is something akin to a stomp, though. At least I would feel it was were I the receiver. Let's let the admins at it since this is their board.WTucker (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  It was strong, granted. And admins aren't really needed here as no special tools are required. No one is asking for sanctions, just a review. Once more time has passed to allow for dissent, and clear consensus still exists for the solution, it is better to just implement it. If an admin thinks this is a bad idea or against policy, they will speak up, otherwise, they have other things to do that do require the mop. I don't think the solution suggested is controversial, although since I suggested it, it is better to have someone else implement it. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 22:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  Here is the thing about WP:PROD, once an editor contests it, you have to bring it to WP:AFD. The PRODs were contested.--v/r - TP 03:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  True, that is clearly established and I should have remembered it and pointed that out. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 12:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• After Lightning Fast Shop has been deleted because of multiple reasons (lack of interest and advertising), I went through the other e-commerce systems (TBH, somewhat emotionally) on List of free and open source eCommerce software and found that more of the half are exactly the same (or worse) as my proposed page about Lightning Fast Shop. Even if I can't understand why this is of any harm for WP, let's take Arcavias for example. This is nothing than pointing to a commercial website. I, for instance, have just linked to the community page of LFS. So, why is LFS supposed to be deleted but Arcavias not? The others I proposed for deletion have similar issues, IMO Hurz4711 (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS would be what you're looking for. I'm not saying tagging those articles was wrong, but sometimes one subject will cut the mustard, while another will not. We still have articles slip through the cracks at times, but that's what CSD, PRODs, and AfDs are for. I'm not saying you were right or wrong with the PRODs, but once an editor removes the PROD tag you can't PROD it again. If you believe those articles don't stand up to policy, then WP:AFD is your next step. Ishdarian 08:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

And to be clear, no on is saying that Hurz4711 adding the PRODs the first time was against a policy, but considering the totality of circumstances, reviewing mass PRODing here at ANI was the right thing to do, as it did look a little unusual. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 12:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I would like some clarity on a way forward here. Whether the other ecommerce applications are notable or not is another story, but I feel that adding seven deletion requests simultaneously as a response to one's own being deleted is unreasonable. The topic has relatively low activity and it's likely all seven are not going to be watched closely and some may be needlessly deleted as a result of this. I'd prefer to work with User:Hurz4711 on their new article to see whether it is notable (it's still hasn't reached version 1.0, so likely not, but may be in the future), or on one at a time of the other articles to see whether they can be salvaged, rather than have to deal with seven simultaneous notices. Some of the other articles may be able to be improved, some may end up being deleted, but this doesn't seem a good faith attempt to deal with the issue. The user's aggressive tone and defensiveness indicate to me that they haven't really had an epiphany. Is there consensus that I go ahead and remove the seven requests again? Greenman (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, behind the times, TP has removed as discussed above, thanks for the clarification. Greenman (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Odd/problematic behavior from User:Luke 19 Verse 27

I recently came across said user and find his edits to be odd enough to request some outside input. Among other things, he:

• Edit wars on multiple pages to include his at times nonsensical edits. (Rex Harrison, L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology, Furry fandom, Kony 2012)
• Called the subject of a picture in one of our articles a "tit-wearing-weirdo in the woods".
• Demands for more pictures at Talk:Human feces.

All this gives me the picture of a user who is here to intentionally disrupt, and I'd like some input from the community about what to do here. --Conti|✉

They remind me of University of Hawaii/United States Army Information Systems Command (USAISC), Fort Shafter, Honolulu, based Lutrinae/Modinyr

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive92#Lutrinae
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive100#Modinyr
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive102#Lutrinae

Sean.hoyland - talk 11:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me" (KJ, Cambridge ed) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, many of his edits are disruptive and could be considered vandalism. I'd give him a warning and consider blocking him if he carries on this way. Deb (talk) 11:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've raised the username (with no response) and so has User:In ictu oculi, though no username change has happened. I understand what he's getting at with it, but it's still provocative. I expect he's only here to disrupt, but I haven't seen anything which I'd block for yet, he's walking the line. Worm · (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Was I reading that right in that he wants more shit dumped onto that article? --MuZemike 11:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
• The edits to the Rex Harrison & Ron Hubbard articles, and the edit notes accompanying them, do not suggest someone who is here for anything other than irritating people.TheLongTone (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Those edits would, in isolation, be perfectly normal copyediting. In particular, the lead should serve as a full summary of the article's key points, and the current lead fails to do that. Tag-team edit warring over such with summaries like this certainly hasn't helped matters, though I would agree that at the very least this editor should be strongly advised to take editing more seriously. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Yea, if one mixes serious editing with "trollz and lulz", it will only be the latter that gets noticed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• I can't say I'm comfortable speculating on whether this user is here to "intentionally disrupt" as Conti suggests above, but I have found them to be amiable and perfectly willing to engage in discussion about their edits. They might stand to stick more to WP:BRD, but as you can see from their edit history, they have been editing pages where there are normally more than a handful of editors willing to tango. --Laser brain (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd noticed this editor on Furry fandom due to the, shall we say, "unique" way of expressing themselves. For instance, their need repeatedly state that furries suffer from "gender confusion." . The latter link also includes the gems, "Don't flash your claws at me, girlfrien" and "Tits on a costumed figure, in a social group known for its gender confusion and sexual adventurers, doesn't let you label said tittied figure and use a tit-wearing-weirdo in the woods as proof that "our stupid little club is gaining more female members.""

Then there's "Not everything with tits is a lady."

And "Look at the boobs, they look like socks in a bra to me. I'm kind of an expert on this." (Really? An expert on socks in bras?)

And: "Regardless, that ain't no lady."

I really can't make up my mind if this editor is pulling our legs, or just has some weird ideas about gender. And an obsession with breasts. — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• The editor just removed my ANI notice on his talk page with the edit summary of "removing dumbness", just for the record. --Conti|✉ 22:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Because when an editor starts arbitration over a few talkpage comments, it is dumbness. All my article edits were constructive. I wrote half of Sir Harrison's lede! Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've had a few minor brushes, mostly over inserting unsourced salacious material. I do not share his interest in fatworm penises. He has a tonne of ability, but Misplaced Pages is not helped by his contributions. Hollywood maybe. --Pete (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Um, apologies to the good faith editors above, but this seems like blatantly obvious WP:NOTHERE. Look at this example of Luke's "colorful" talk page commentary: . Look at his claim that a famous 1940s-60s actor is now only famous for inspiring the voice/style of a cartoon character: (which, as was pointed out,he edit warred to try and keep in the article). But more obviously, look at his comments on Talk:Nishidani: blatant vandalism and a personal attack. The only reason I didn't block him immediately after seeing these is that there seems to be some concern from others above that this is fixable, and I don't want to take a first-mover advantage. But really, does anyone really see anything worth keeping? My opinion is the person is either just here for the lulz, or is too immature to understand how Misplaced Pages works (or both). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, upon further review, I can no longer AGF on this one. I'd Support a block for disruption on Luke. — The Hand That Feeds You: 12:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has resumed his pattern of aggression and personal attacks, e.g. , , .

KW was blocked for previously 1 week for incivility, at the start of April (see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive745#User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz), and the problem was the subject of an RFC/U in October 2011: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

BHG's quotation of KW was exceptionally dishonest - quoting to be a pledge to engage in disruption is beyond the pale. I understand that the way you play the game is to needle at the opposition until they snap then present a biased picture on IRC (thanks for at least doing this one in the open!), but as usual, it's poor form, again. Where's that cartoon about the dog? Hipocrite (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

What's all that about? I don't use IRC, and was not trying to needle.

I was merely pointing out that the creation of the category in question followed previous contentious appearances at Cfd by the same editor over categories related to that band, and that the category creator had already been engaged in what he called "horseplay", i.e. disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point. You may not share my conclusion that the latest creation was also pointy, but please drop the accusation of dishonesty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how "BrownHairedGirl has a problem with honesty or intelligence today" can be considered as anything other than a personal attack. And in an area where KW has been previously blocked for a week for similar behaviour. Perhaps KW thinks it's subtle, though. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

A statement about BHG's behavior today is not a personal attack. However, for WP:NPA violations, see the quotation out of context by BHG, noted above. It is worth noting that BHG quoted out of context my remarks written in a peace-making dialog with Good Olfactory, who behaved honorably and fairly after my blocking, e.g. by listening to my concerns and conveying them, despite his disagreeing with my judgments.

It is a predictable pity that Demiurge1000 appears again without any concern for incivility, AGF, NPA violations against me by BHG, but nobody cares what he writes about me, since he has not had the courtesy to apologize for the smearing of Lihaas as a national socialist, or about his lies in the RfC, where he accused me of deleting material about Penn Kemble that I had in fact restored. But since no administrator has called Demiurge1000 or other familiars to account, what is the point of complaining?

Being honor-bred, I shall withdraw.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• I tried to stay out of this, but felt compelled to read some of the previous history, and well, here I am. KW seems to just cross the line in his comments regularly, including the three examples given. Whether or not he was provoked isn't particularly material, as I pointed out to someone else in a discussion above. The degree to which these instances are considered personal attacks might be a little bit overstated, but the long term pattern is brutally clear. Elen of the Roads summed it up neatly with her comment "Good contribution isn't a free pass" at the RFC/U. It is as if he is compelled to take things just one step too far in every comment. His contributions to content here are appreciated and numerous, but if his actions prevent others from contributing because they are forced to seek sanctions against him on a regular basis, then those contributions are diluted. I'm frustrated when an otherwise good editor risks participation because of their inability to remain civil because there is no easy answer, and often we lose otherwise good talent. I would reserve further comment until I hear KW's perspective on the issue, and will simply hope that history doesn't have to repeat itself in the tone of his replies. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 16:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  Dennis, would you comment on Brown Haired Girl's behavior or do administrators get free passes to violate civility, AGF, NPA, etc.? Please strike you comments about my inability if you are able.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• I hope Brown Haired Girl is wearing a mouthpiece and helmet, because it looks at a glance to me like there's a stalking boomerang headed this way... Stop picking on K-Wolf. Carrite (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  I wear no protective gear, and don't see why I should need any.

  I have never set out to pick on KW, and have had very little interaction with him. I think that my only encounters with KW have been in a few recent CFDs, when I tried to avoid engaging him. I had never posted on his talk page until Twinkle auto-posted a CFD notice there on my behalf this morning, and I nom'ed the category only after spotting a similar one at CFD and doing some research.

  So what exactly is the basis for this allegation of stalking? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  Carrite, are you going to explain yourself, or are you going to apologise? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The meaning seems to me to be self-evident, nor do I see anything requiring apology. People who jam sticks into bee hives shouldn't be surprised when bees act like bees, and they should be strongly advised to stop jamming sticks into bee hives. Carrite (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

N.B.: ...and I nom'ed the category only after spotting a similar one at CFD and doing some research. Carrite (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Shock horror! Editor makes a CFD nomination!!!

Carrite, the purpose of XfD is for editors to make proposals which are then discussed to seek a consensus. I was looking through the current CFD nominations, and commented on several of them. In this case, after I checked out its contents, parents and sub-cats, and the relevant guideline, I nominated its parent for deletion.

If I understand you correctly, what you seem to be saying is that 1) I should have known in advance that KW would respond like an angry bee, and 2) that I should therefore have refrained from proposing the deletion of a category which appeared to be both superfluous and outside of the existing category structure. You may not agree with my proposed deletion, but why do you compare this with jamming sticks into bee hives?

Should I have checked first whether KW was likely to respond with a personal attack, and if so, why? Do you want editors to refrain from opening XfD discussions in relation to pages created by certain editors? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• "The dishonesty or stupidity BHG can display beggars belief" is clearly a personal attack. If a week's block didn't alter this person's conduct, I recommend a 30-day block. If that doesn't work, try 6 months, a year, and then indefinite. That's more than enough chances. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Note that KW has left this note on a certain other user's talk page, which makes me concerned that KW is using this as an attempt to derail Dennis Brown's RfA because DB voiced an opinion that was against Kiefer. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 19:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, that's on the user's own damn talk page and it looks like a response to some passive aggressive needling. You don't want people to say mean things to you, stop poking them. Agree with Carrite above. And some of you, seriously, you got nothing better to do? Shoo!VolunteerMarek 19:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Marek, how do you figure that's on KW's talkpage, when the link goes to Malleus' page? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

An admin has just blocked him for a month. Way to go people. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems in part because of alleged canvassing, yet I was already aware of Dennis Brown's RfA, as it was discussed on a talk page on my watchlist, here. Malleus Fatuorum 19:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

"...canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate is considered inappropriate." It's clear that KW was trying to get you to jump in on his side, so it's not relevant that you were already aware. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

What's clear to you isn't at all clear to me. I had serious reservations about Dennis Brown's RfA right from the start, for various reasons unrelated to Kiefer. Malleus Fatuorum 19:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

That's entirely fair, Malleus -- I wasn't sure which way to go myself, given the recent history of CSD tagging, and some closes on AN/I I wasn't sure about. However, it's irrelevant whether Kiefer succeeded in influencing your opinion -- just trying is against CANVASS. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• A month block seems... excessive. I've seen far more serious personal attacks receive much softer sanctions recently. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, but this is not a single isolated incident. It's a return to exactly the same behaviour in exactly the same area. In those circumstances, blocks escalate. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• I also think this is excessive administration, a month for this minor disruption is undue. - Youreallycan 19:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think it's a fair block. This is a pattern of personal attacks that this user shows no sign of curbing. You have to draw the line at some point. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  I'd like to draw the line at you sticking your nose into every AN/I report that you believes offers you an opportunity to get your own back on someone. Malleus Fatuorum 19:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• What would I need to get my own back on him for? What's it got to do with you anyway? Oh yeah, nothing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not going to spend a lot of time arguing about this (I can't stand edit conflicts), but what bothers me here is that it appears KW is getting the book thrown at him--while worse offenders are getting slaps on the wrist. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• If they are worse offenders than KW, then you should definitely open an RfC/U regarding their behaviour. But don't be surprised when you get a great deal of mud thrown at you for doing so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• If it's got nothing to do with me Bretonbanquet then it's sure as Hell got even less to do with you. Malleus Fatuorum 20:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• You know what I mean. You don't get a say in where I post, barring your talkpage. If you have a complaint to make, please make it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Having, regretfully, noticed this (obviously) I shall comment, for what my remarks are worth. I think it was a pretty blatant violation of WP:CANVASS and whilst I know Malleus was aware of the RFA I'm a little surprised he decided to oppose just after Keifer's note. I thought Malleus to be his own man. I also view KW's actions as a deliberate attempt to derail the RFA in revenge - ironic as before this ANI he was supporting the RFA and BHG was opposing. I think the diff cited above regarding dishonesty or stupidity was certainly overly strident I understand overly strident, me. Nevertheless I don't feel a month block is the way forward here. It doesn't seem preventative at all. When KW's good he's very very good, when he's bad - well he needs to learn to step away from the keyboard - but not for a month. Pedro :  Chat  20:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  KW's note was simply a memory jogger. But if you're suggesting that without it I might have supported Dennis BRown's RfA then you're way off target. Malleus Fatuorum 20:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  Don't be so ridiculous. I was awaiting your oppose and was mildly surprised it hadn't turned up earlier. Even you must recognise that opposing that RFA with your first edit after KW's posting looks poor whatever the facts. Pedro :  Chat  20:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  It's a matter of interpretation. What I did was to oppose after having been reminded of the RfA. Malleus Fatuorum 21:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, it's a matter of interpretation. And the perception of others. Pedro :  Chat  21:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  I have no control over the perception of others. You have admitted that you expected me to oppose the RfA, and I did. When I did has little bearing on anything. Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

What other methods would you suggest for dealing with this behaviour from KW that keeps recurring over, and over, and over again? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not particularly opposed to backing it down to 2 (or 3?) weeks, I just didn't think that would have any long-term effects.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

That's the crux of it - one week wasn't effective at all, so there's no reason to imagine that two weeks would be. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Or that a month would be either. Malleus Fatuorum 20:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

If one month isn't effective, I recommend the next block be 6 months. If that doesn't work, then the next block after that should be a year. If that still doesn't work, then indefinitely block them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you ever seen a block fix anything? Malleus Fatuorum 20:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Come join us in Indian caste articles, and you'll see that it's quite effective there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a raincheck on that if you don't mind. Malleus Fatuorum 21:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Think a month is OTT for a few reasons (noting that I also opposed his last block here (which was for a week), AND was the one who brought up the "canvassing" incident above). I don't see the original remarks as an "escalation" of any sort. It was Kiefer being Kiefer. Was it a personal attack or uncivil? Probably, yes. But would someone else have been blocked for a month (or even a week, if they had no prior history) for making that comment? Probably not. It seems that the canvassing — I wouldn't have termed it as 'canvassing', more 'an attempt to derail' (but I appreciate it's a minute difference in this case) — has tipped the balance here. Personally I'd rather have just seen a short block to remind Kiefer of his responsibilities as an editor — possibly for the duration of Dennis's RFA for the "canvassing" — but I think a month has a lot of "punitive" to it. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 20:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest that extensive homework is done before issuing mega-blocks to anybody, for starters. There are undercurrents and long-term personality clashes in the background here. And Bretonbanquet does have an axe to grind, here (and if anyone really, really wants the diffs, I suppose I could go and dig them up, but whether it's worth the effort to do so simply to undermine the strength of B's post here is debatable. But he knows exactly what I'm talking about, and I pointed out to him at the time that if he didn't cease and desist I would bring it to AN/I, which is not something I usually do). Canvassing? I think the posts were neutrally worded, myself; if I had received such a message (which I didn't), I would have carefully read through all the background to see exactly what was going on. A simple notice that someone with a current RfA was commenting at AN/I might5 actually help some people to make a better-informed assessment of the candidate. But meh, y'know, I don't suppose for one moment that the majority of people actually have the will to do really thorough background research (and by "thorough", I mean taking into account all the previous interaction histories for several months). Selected highlights to promote a particular POV seem to be acceptable, as opposed to "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Pesky (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Sarek, absolute maximum would be for the duration of the RfA, and only then if consensus was that the posts weren't neutrally-worded. Seriously. Pesky (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Pesky, that would make sense if I had blocked only for the canvassing. That was just the straw that broke the camel's back. Now, if you feel that KW was improperly provoked, block the provoker, don't give KW a pass for the insults.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Reduced to week-and-two, per some of the comments above. That will allow the RfA to conclude, as was suggested, though it seems that some of the commentary above might have a more detrimental effect on said RfA than anything KW posted. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Acting on "some of the comments" is not exactly operating by consensus, Nikki... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, time period chosen was based on some comments above - "maximum would be for the duration of the RfA", for example. Most commentators suggest length was excessive (and you yourself said you would not be opposed to a reduction). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

But "week and two" is a reduction of too much. Two weeks would have been a good minimum, as KW has, regretfully, learned absolutely nothing and not changed his behavior one iota after his previous block - indeed, he instantly resumed exactly the same sort of POINTy behavior that got him blocked last time. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A reduction to 2 (or 3) weeks was my quote. 9 days is barely an escalation over KW's last pattern-of-incivility block from earlier this month. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yep, way too much of a reduction. If one week didn't work last time, what makes you think 9 days will? I would think that two weeks would be the absolute minimum. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Fine, two weeks. Can we all go, y'know, edit some content now or something? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's reasonable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Fine with me, although, sadly, I think we will be back here again a great deal sooner than we would like. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't block anyone - I'm not (nor do I ever want to be) a Nadmin! (Mainly because I would hate being obliged to adhere to the standards that I would expect from myself, as a Nadmin.) But really, really, the homework which would need to be done here is extensive. And I'm more inclined, personally, to go the reparation / mediation / mentoring route wherever possible than the blocking route (even if I were an admin). People do bait, and provoke, and quote people out of context (which is, in itself a violation of WP:CIVIL). I think it's probably more of a violation than the snap-back response is. I just can't get away from the thing about this block being punitive and not preventative. It's revenge, not damage-limitation, in atmosphere. And there will always be people who will jump on this kind of bandwagon to boost the consensus for things like this, even when they've been self-admittedly deliberately baiting and provoking, themselves, in the past. There's a heap of big mess around the whole civility thing; but seemingly-punitive blocks aren't the way forward. I think it's always well worth doing extensive investigation into the background of "Me too! Me too! Block! Block!" contributors to AN/I. But I appreciate that there's not enough time in the day for admins to do everything to the standards which would be ideal. (And certainly not enough time in my days; far too many commitments and obligations IRL, thanks very much!) Pesky (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we're all delighted you got to protest, yet again, that you don't want to be an admin. Is there a B side to the record Pesky? The A side is a tad broken. Pedro :  Chat  21:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Well I suggested mentoring only very recently, and you seemed to think it wouldn't work. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Not "official mentoring", and certainly not for the really-experienced (that's kinda humiliating). But mentoring for baiters and provocateurs (and I recall with a grin Jehochman's comment on us having some master baiters in WikiLand ;P). But people simply saying "Sorry!" sometimes would go such a very long way! It just doesn't feel right that things get dragged to dramahz-boards when a truce, beer, chat, would solve stuff. And a little more tolerance of each other's glitches. . We all have glitches. Really making a concerted effort to understand each other better would work. @Pedro: the B-side is just a re-hash of the backing track, remixed to a Happy Hardcore beat ;P Pesky (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl has not baited anybody, and does not deserve to be called stupid and dishonest, period. Any self-respecting member of the civility police should at least acknowledge that simple fact before jumping in with "witch-hunt" accusations. 28bytes (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Please would you go ahead and set the block to two weeks, as opposed to Nikkimaria's rather wheel-warring reduction? I don't think there is anyone opposed to two weeks (as far as I can work out). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I headed over to make the change, but was beaten to the punch --SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

@Pesky The "reparation / mediation / mentoring" route is not incompatible with blocking. On occasion, it takes a block to persuade someone to take proffered advice seriously.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• In seeing all the remarks about how KW was hard done by, baited and the like ... sorry: I call bullshit. Shouldn't the demeanor and deportment of someone with four civility blocks in six months be ever so 'umble, bending over backwards to remain civil, to indeed stay civil no matter the provocation (alleged or otherwise)? You know, the way every editor on Misplaced Pages is supposed to act as a matter of course all the time? Ravenswing 01:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  What a strange and rather distasteful idea. Malleus Fatuorum 01:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Alleged quoting out of context

Several editors have picked up KW's claim that I quoted him "out of context", and asserted that this was uncivil. That was certainly not my intention, and AFAICS the facts don't stand it up. KW's talk page is hard to follow, because it includes so many copy-pastes of discussions elsewhere, so it's a bit unclear what is a discussion on his talk and what comes from somewhere else ... so here is a link to the relevant section of KW's talk as it appeared when I read it this morning.

The discussion there relates to Category:Yes (band) Yes Album album covers, created by KW and speedy deleted by another editor. We do have a Category:Album covers by recording artist, but no Category:Album covers by album, so the creation of the category was outside the convention of such categories ... and in the edit from which I quoted, KW explicitly acknowledges that the category was inspired by the renaming of the "Yes album covers" to "Yes (album) album covers", a renaming about which whose wisdom we have agreed to disagree.

The part of that edit which I quoted was I can propose redundant categories as a rhetorical ploy to make the proposer of the Yes-renaming a bit uncomfortable, or one hopes to smile at the occasional absurdities consequent upon consistent application of a WP heuristic. The "Yes (band) (band)" suggestion was horseplay.

He didn't just propose the redundant "Yes (band) (band)" category ... he also created the speedily-deleted Category:Yes (band) Yes Album album covers, and also the category which I saw at CfD today (viz Category:Yes (band) Yessongs songs), plus the Category:Yes (band) Yessongs which I nom'ed for deletion.

The context which I saw was of an editor who a) acknowledged the pointy creation of one category and the proposal of another as horseplay, and b) had now created two further un-needed categories on the same topic. So, how exactly was my quoting here and here of KW's comment about horseplay "out of context"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Context may mean different things to different people. I dunno. But it did seem that you'd categorised (or diff-picked) to illustrate "disruptiveness" as opposed to jokinesss ... it's very hard to put into words precisely (this may be the root of the problem). Your wording, combined with the diffs, didn't seem to represent the whole picture, just one possible slant. Pesky (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Did KW make the edits that BrownHairedGirl just said he made, or not?

What is "jokey" about disrupting Misplaced Pages, repeatedly, to make a point?

Did KW accuse me of being a liar, and of "smearing" another editor, further up this thread?

Did KW, after he was blocked on this occasion, suggest on his talkpage that "psychosis" might be one explanation of Sarek's actions? Did he also make something approaching a legal threat about Sarek's username?

Did KW suggest that BrownHairedGirl needed "to rest"? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Did KW intimate that I had problems thinking rationally? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Since KW has enthusiastically demonstrated on his talk page that he does not understand the reasons he was blocked, and since KW is currently still only blocked for a reduced amount of time as set by User:Nikkimaria (who was, in my opinion, wheel-warring), perhaps an adminstrator who is able to make difficult blocks should reset the block to three weeks with talk page disabled? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Why would you want his talk page disabled? Bunnies! Leave a message 00:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, why is everyone so trigger happy and block happy? Is he doing damage to the encyclopedia at the moment? If he's not, then disengage and walk away. A month was too long - and quite frankly so is two weeks. Fwiw, I've never interacted with the guy, but really, isn't there anything else to do here? Truthkeeper (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice to see you here, Truthkeeper. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and while you're here, did you know about the new tools that help to distinguish between truth and lies? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You're being very baitey. So, you've discovered that I've edited pages he has. I've never interacted with him at all. Your edit summary was something to effect that urgent admin action is needed - please answer the question: is the encyclopedia being harmed by whatever it is that he's doing? Truthkeeper (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

"A month was too long - and quite frankly so is two weeks. Fwiw, I've never interacted with the guy" - if you had, you'd realise that two weeks is barely long enough, since he was previously blocked for a week for exactly the same actions and behavior that he is blocked for now. And I agree, sadly, that we're likely to be right back here three weeks from now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You're right - I've blissfully kept AN/I unwatched for months until about 48 hours ago, and I'm about to unwatch again. Seeing Demiurge's call to action I had a look b/c I though something really bad was happening. Anyway, I think someone might want to look into this massive show of bad faith and incivility on the part of Demiurge. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you have anything to say about Demiurge1000's accusation that Truthkeeper was lying? Or Pedro's latest abusive ranting? Malleus Fatuorum 00:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm waiting to hear back from Truthkeeper, just as I'm waiting for an administrator with some guts to undo Nikkimaria's wheel-warring. All things in time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Demiurge1000: Nikkimaria did not wheel war. Also, you do appear to be baiting Truthkeeper; perhaps, considering your past interactions with KW, this might be a good point for you to gracefully bow out of this thread. 28bytes (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion on that. Carry on. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It's my opinion too, but you needn't thank me. We'll all carry on as we see fit, no need for your blessing on that. Do you really not understand the difference between interacting and editing the same page? Else consider me as the great interactor of Kiefer.Wolfowitz (see toolperver), Truthkeeper88 () and Demiurge1000 (). Oddly, I recall no interactions with either of these three fine editors. Please provide diffs, not brute insignificant statistics. We get it. You don't like Kiefer. We heard you the first time. No need to run up and down, commenting on everyone's post with your personal take on the situation. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Accusation of lying the third, fourth (?) time and directive to go back to writing? Seriously, this is acceptable? I've only run into this guy a couple of times before and haven't a clue why he's being so baitey or uncivil. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

User:ISuicideI

Someone has just created the above as their username. I find that slightly concerning - thought I'd mention it here. Calabe1992 18:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:UAA? --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 18:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, that would work, but... not exactly a typical violation. Likely better for someone to investigate rather than just block. Calabe1992 21:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

(Minor Investigation) - User has no edits on any wiki, and was created on the Spanish Misplaced Pages. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 21:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

A block? Hmmm, that might really cheer them up... how about WP:ROPE while you're at it? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Unless they do anything else that is concerning, there's nothing needing to be done here in my opinion. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined not to block for now and allow the user to carry on as that will help any report that goes to authorities, and per some of the guidance in WP:SUICIDE. I am actively watching it and the WMF does know about it. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Um, citing WP:ROPE is a bit...callous when discussing a potentially suicidal user, don't you think? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Not even borderline. Both commenters invoking this above should probably reconsider their black humour thresholds at ANI. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Awfully callous not to a) welcome the user, or b) advise them of this filing. I've done both, plus advised them that their name is a little ... concerning. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I've never dealt with a potentially suicidal user before, and didn't necessarily want to take any immediate action myself. WP:ROPE probably wasn't the greatest page to cite here, but thanks to DQ for handling this. Calabe1992 00:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria, ya...wasn't thinking that mind frame when I did it, wasn't my intention. Modified. @Bwilkins, sometimes IAR applies to the latter, personally that's why I didn't do it. For the welcoming...ya would have been an idea to do it. @All With still no edits at this ungodly hour, I'm heading to bed thinking we aren't going to have an emergency. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 07:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria, ... alas, was thinking that mind frame. Sincere apologies if an intended criticism of a "block first, think later" wiki policy was read as a joke at the expense of an anonymous suicide bid. Maybe one of the situations where one hopes an editor really is just a mindless vandal. In which case, of course, a block is fully justified. So a conundrum. I think DQ has acted very responsibly. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Threat of legal action by Chrisjs60

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chrisjs60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Threat of legal action in this edit by user working for Knights of Equity. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Indeffed. Thanks. Salvio 22:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Does it bother anyone that the editor was trying to remove a negative, unsourced comment? Sometimes, legal threats are issued in response to valid problems. Buddy431 (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, I've prodded the article. I don't see any claim of, let alone evidence of, notability, and could not find any of my own. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thought about that myself... although I think it's debatable. I'm going to remove the prod and AFD it.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Then User:Chrisjs60 needs to be unblocked until there is a consensus to block due to violating the no legal threats policy. --MuZemike 06:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of tools by this admin since he made ZERO effort to communicate with the user as to why he was blocking him, and didn't attempt to explain why there is a policy in place or give the user a chance to change his phrasing. This is exactly why people should have their tools use removed, because if you cannot achieve a positive outcome without the tools, you don't need to be using them at all. In addition, it appears that User:Total-MAdMaN also made ZERO effort to explain the policies on the article Talk page or the User's Talk page, or anywhere else. Please remind this admin and user that this AN/I page states in BOLD at the top: "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." -- Avanu (talk) 06:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm Dude... I don't even know where to start. Is this really dry sarcasm? If it is... well done! Doc talk 06:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm completely and utterly serious. YOU SIMPLY DON'T ACT LIKE THIS AS AN ADMIN. We have rules and before people start deploying the banhammer, you're supposed to follow them, otherwise it is simply hypocrisy. New people make mistakes in protocol because they don't know any better, and admins are supposed to know better. Some attempt to communicate is the very first and most basic thing we ought to know here. I really wish I was just masterfully using dry wit, but it is strongarm tactics and lack of BASIC non-admin tools, aka communication, that really bother me. -- Avanu (talk) 06:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

That diff (and edit summary) is about as unambiguous a legal threat as I've seen. They have a chance to retract it on their talk page. Doc talk 06:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is unambiguous and clear. But how does adding another wrong make this right? We have a duty to inform and discuss. No one made any attempt to do so before blocking. My concern is not about whether the user deserves a block, of course he DOES because he broke a rule. But breaking other rules in order to correct behavior isn't right. We don't edit war until someone gets tired... we stop and turn to consensus. Similarly, if a new and uninformed user breaks a rule, we don't block out of hand. We inform and we discuss and we act like professionals, we don't react with tools because we CAN, we react with tools when we MUST. Do you see the difference? -- Avanu (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

"Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing while legal threats are outstanding." That's usually an indefinite block (which is not infinite) when it's as blatant a legal threat as that one. They have a choice to either retract it, or they can remain blocked. It's policy. No admin misused their tools in this case. Doc talk 07:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It becomes a violation in policy because of the lack of communcation. It is a perfectly valid reason for a block, but it is a very poorly executed block. -- Avanu (talk) 07:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a good example of WP:DOLT. Still, I don't think screaming at Salvio is necessary. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anyone screaming at anyone else, but it is a very serious punishment to be indefinitely blocked, and if there were ever an appropriate time to critique an editor/admin for an action it is this. The user is still blocked, the editors/admins involved still haven't demonstrated the proper protocol in response. What would you suggest that a reasonable editor say or do in response? -- Avanu (talk) 07:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

He's referring to your use of ALLCAPS, which is very "shouty". As far as your question: a) Don't issue legal threats in the first place, and b) If you do, and you find yourself rightfully blocked for them until your legal issue is resolved , see WP:GAB. Doc talk 07:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:LEGAL - "Rather than blocking immediately, administrators should seek to clarify the user's meaning and make sure that a mere misunderstanding is not involved." I see no attempt made by either the notifying editor or the administrator to 'clarify the user's meaning'. Per WP:BLOCK - "Administrators should take special care when dealing with new users. Beginning editors are often unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages policy and convention, and so their behavior may initially appear to be disruptive. Responding to these new users with excessive force can discourage them from editing in the future." Again, not in line with policy. I realize that often there are many sympathies with the admin in these cases, after all, they didn't *start* the problem, they just 'solved' it. But this is why WP:ADMIN says "They are never required to use their tools". Kneejerk blocks don't solve problems. Discussion with poorly informed users often can solve a problem. -- Avanu (talk) 07:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, would you like to be blocked? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Would you? -- Avanu (talk) 08:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• shrugs* I'm not the one who's risking it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Your first quote from WP:LEGAL is under the section Perceived legal threats. That isn't a perceived legal threat, it IS a legal threat and so has been dealt with appropriately. I would suggest though that maybe the template {{uw-lblock}} could expand slightly on what is required for an unblock in these cases. - Happysailor 07:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a reasonable suggestion. -- Avanu (talk) 08:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Good block. It was a clear legal threat. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

And as for the various policy requirements that weren't followed? Is that good as well? -- Avanu (talk) 08:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, there is no requirement for a prior warning or other conciliatory action prior to blocking for a legal threat if it is unambiguous. Along with copyright violations, legal threats have a bleed-through effect where they can cause off-wiki problems for us, and are thus special-cased. The additional problem (that the article contained unsourced damaging claims about the subject) has been resolved by deleting the material in question. All of this was concluded within two hours of this thread being started. This is a textbook example of how ANI should work. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Need help in straightening out a mess

Would greatly appreciate an uninvolved admin with a little spare time to help straighten out a move/delete/merge discussion mess that has cropped up (everyone involved was acting in good faith).

Yesterday, I proposed a move of Seamus (dog) to Mitt Romney dog controversy here and several people commented on the proposal. Sometime later, at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Obama Eats Dogs, another editor proposed merging Seamus (dog) and Obama Eats Dogs into Dogs in the 2012 United States presidential election, which I actually liked better than my original idea - I posted a pointer to the AfD merge discussion here. After that, yet another editor created yet another merge discussion at Talk:Seamus (dog) here.

So basically, there are now three discussions regarding slightly different variants of the same idea. Does anyone have any ideas for perhaps deciding which one place is the best venue, and perhaps hatting/closing the others? I would give it a shot myself but I am an involved editor. Any help welcome. Kelly 22:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Kelly's take is pretty much spot on. It is messy. I am the editor that created the last mentioned thread on the talk page, and I did so because I think an AFD for a different article is not the correct venue for the discussion, but I'm ok with what ever consensus arises obviously. I'm not 100% sure ANI is the right venue for this, but it's not really much of a "dispute" as much as a procedural problem, so admin help would be quite welcome. SÆdon 22:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

To thus of us who remember the relentless edit-warring from 2008 and 2009 over politicians' articles (liberal and conservative both), it's unfortunate that there seems to be no improvement since then. This kind of garbage does not belong in a "real" encyclopedia. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Look on the bright side - I don't anything can ever be as bad as Sarah Palin in late 2008, with hundreds of edits per minute and wheel-warring involved admins. I think I still have PTSD from that article. Kelly 23:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think things are that bad tbh. In a couple months it'll all be worked out and might be a GA, all just part of the process. SÆdon 23:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeh, sure. Just you wait, 'Enry 'Iggins. And I missed the obvious-as-the-nose-on-my-face comment that wikipedia is "going to the dogs". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's just hope the dogs are Keeshonds :). SÆdon 05:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe WP:RECENT needs to be a speedy criterion.WTucker (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Actually I'd like to take issue with something in the first line of this thread. User:Kelly says "everyone involved was acting in good faith" but I think there is a possibility that this is not true in her case. Judging by her involvement with the Seamus article, creating the new Obama article, and her responses at the various talk pages, as well as her pattern of disruptive editing in the past, I think she may be gaming the system and/or treating it all like a game. Or at the least, looking to take advantage of the mess to wear others out. El duderino 05:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  What else did I do? I have to admit, so far it sounds like I am a Very Bad Person and should be investigated immediately. Kelly 06:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think the mess would have been completely prevented had you not created the Obama Eats Dogs article. The mess stems from that. The Seamus article is fine where it is or under 'Mitt Romney dog controversy'. The Obama non-issue can be added as a tiny mention on the Seamus article, as a reaction to it. Softlavender (talk) 06:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  That's really a content issue, we were just looking for some help with the procedural stuff. Kelly 06:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  Sure thing. I propose a topic ban on Kelly relating to all articles, images, and templates concerning the 2012 election, its candidates, and any related issues, such as memes. How's that? Viriditas (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with Viriditas. Kelly, you obviously have to wait for your Obama Eats Dogs article to be deleted. Then the discussion can occur in one place: on the Talk page of the Seamus article, where it should. Softlavender (talk) 07:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse Topic Ban Given Kelly's conduct in this instance, and reviewing last years Sarah Palin fiasco, I agree that Kelly should not be involved with anything related to the 2012 elections. There are other users who should also get said topic bans, but none of them had the temerity to blatantly violate WP:POINT, and none of them to my knowledge did it last time as well. Hipocrite (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  Heh - perhaps someone should first submit some evidence of my poor conduct? Kelly 12:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  Sure thing. You started an article named Obama Eats Dogs, which was created by this unreliable source, based on this gossip blog which does not meet the reliable source guidelines established on Misplaced Pages. Anything else? Viriditas (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  That's the only source? Kelly 13:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  Care to tell me how a so-called "meme" started by a partisan gossip blog is an acceptable source? You wouldn't be trying to use Misplaced Pages to push a political POV now, would you? Viriditas (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  Nope - actually the whole intent is to balance the POV in Seamus (dog) by including the other camp's response< which is why I would personally like to see a merge of the two. I think the article is sourced to acceptably reliable sources like the Washington Post and ABC News. Is there a problem with neutrality in the wording of the article? (We're veering into content issues here.) Kelly 13:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  That sounds like POV pushing. One could write an entire article about Seamus without ever mentioning "Obama Eats Dogs". The only one linking the two issues is an unreliable partisan gossip blog, who you appear to be representing. Viriditas (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  It sounds like the Grundle Method of NPOV, honestly. The belief that a Good Fact placed near a Bad Fact results in NPOV is a common error seen in partisan editors. Tarc (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  Sorry, Kelly, but I have to endorse a topic ban from articles related to the 2012 election as well. It's nothing personal, I just think that it's pretty clear you're trying to push a POV here. Based on your comment above, you seem to unintentionally confirm the gaming accusation against you by saying that the reason you created the Obama eats dog article was to get a POV in, hoping that the content would be merged (against consensus on the Seamus talk page). Even after I explained very logically why what Obama did as a 6 year old is a red herring in respect to the Romney dog issue, you pressed the point without any sort of logical argument as to how the issues are related. You had to know that Obama eats dog would have gone to AFD immediately, it's just so obviously a POV fork, and that tells me that you're not able to edit in this are dispassionately. SÆdon 20:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The fact that we even have a Misplaced Pages article on a dog spending a few hours riding on a roof of a car shows how easily the Misplaced Pages system is gamed. North8000 (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It's an election year. This crap always pops up when the US Presidency is up for grabs. It's only going to get worse once the GOP convention is over, and the full campaigning starts. There's a reason I stay away from politics articles. — The Hand That Feeds You: 12:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Which reminds me, it is probably about time to look at candidate bios for senate and house races, as this is the point in the election cycle where we see puff pieces arise. Hopefully there will be less hissy fits when articles are pruned as oppose dto the last time around. Tarc (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

So first, is, or has there been, an RFC/U for Kelly? If not, I suggest the those asking for a topic ban get busy. Second, think you guys could move your Topic ban comments to a different subsection? I barely even noticed that it had been proposed, and I doubt I'm the only one. Oh, and Oppose. Arkon (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

An RFCU has never been a prerequisite for a topic ban. SÆdon 00:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

This general subject seems to be crying out for a home. Many presidents have had interactions with dogs, one way or another. There was the Bushes' dog, for example, a pint-sized pup that attacked reporters. And there was the case of LBJ, who took a lot of heat for lifting his beagles by their ears. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

That's actually a pretty damn decent idea, Bugs. First dogs anyone? SÆdon 00:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

FDR had a dog named Fala. And then there was the infamous Nixon speech about a family dog named Checkers. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Tag-teaming and edit-warring at Shen Yun Performing Arts

Some attention may be required at some stage in the near future, as there seems to be a massive content dispute, replete with the walls of wikilawyering about the inadmissibility of certain sources very similar to what has been historically taking place at Falun Gong and other related articles. There have also been a number of reverts of well-justified and sourced material that look to me very much like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Ohconfucius 08:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about reporting this Ohconfucius, you did the right thing. Now, can you give us a detailed description of the perpetrators? Desk Ref (talk) 11:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring the unconstructive reply above, it does help to give a few more details about what action you are seeking. There has been no (or very mild) edit warring, and people appear to be discussing on the talk page. Most admins don't have the to wade through the edit history to learn the whole story for what doesn't appear to be a major issue; the onus is on you to show there is a problem. -RunningOnBrains 18:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Dehr

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Dehr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Dehr (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

indefinite block; Misplaced Pages:ARBAA2#Standard_discretionary_sanctions

Administrator imposing the sanction

Timotheus_Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

Statement by Dehr

• The accusation of “blatant bad faith” seems to be way too emotional and indefinite block is way too harsh and suspiciously quick. I have rviewed AA2 discretionary sanctions log and found that no one ever has been indefinitely banned so suddenly and hastily. T.Canens used a strange edit summary "You have been blocked from editing for violating an arbitration decision with your edits" . My block is unprecedented across the AA area and WP in general.
• There is no direct proof that I was acting in bad faith or that I was trying to game the system, as alleged by T.Canens. I never used the acquired 500+ edit count to my advantage and never implied that I was going to, i.e. I never showcased that fact, and I never used it on talk pages to influence discussion or influence conduct of other users. I regret that I mimicked User:Winterbliss (the other user blocked simultaneously). I was sure User:Winterbliss was a more knowledgeable and senior user, and I thought it was ok to acquire the 500 edit counts the way he did. I created an entirely new article called Ghaibalishen Massacre and hoped that the benefit of building a new article from scratch would offset any possible controversies arising from the method I was editing that article. Now I realize that it was a mistake but I could not know before the fact that it was. I regret that but it was an honest mistake as I naively copied the behavior of a more experienced user, Winterbliss.
• The restriction imposed on the Nagorno-Karabakh article does not specify what method of acquiring new edits is good faith and what can be viewed as bad faith. This is bound to confuse less experienced editors like me, now and in the future. Generally, the article-wide sanctions for Nagorno-Karabakh are confusingly worded, see .
• I was given NO opportunity to explain my actions in AE report hastily filed by User:Grandmaster . The decision by T.Canens was too quick to be seen as balanced and reasonable. Several old users already expressed their surprise . However, I want to stress, I don’t think T.Canens has a bias against me – he is, like many administrators, possibly too busy and angry because his hard work does not earn enough recognition. I am appealing to his good side and hope it will help.
• I have a good record of editing. I was never before sanctioned for any misconduct (edit warring, sockpuppetry, or anything else). I always used talk pages to explain my position in editing, and I was always complying with WP regulations on civility, AGF, etc. The block was imposed for “Disruptive editing” but there is no evidence per WP:DISRUPT that I was disruptive. Please see WP:DISRUPT where it is also mentioned that “An editor may be accidentally disruptive because they don't understand how to correctly edit, or because they lack the social skills or competence necessary to work collaboratively.” This was sufficient in some previous cases to get users unblocked instantly but my conduct is more WP-compliant than the "accidental - (good faith) - disruptiveness" mentioned in that sentence.
• Per reviewing Armenia-Azerbaijan “Log on Blocs and Bans” I could not but noticed that only Armenian-side users are blocked indefinitely while Azerbaijani users have never been indefinitely blocked although their they behave more poorly than their Armenian counterparts . Reason?
• I cannot access T.Canens directly. Please alert T.Canens if you see this request.

Statement by Timotheus Canens

To the extent that this appeal is directed to me, I decline it. To the extent that it is directed to the community, I recommend that the appeal be declined as well.

Previous AE cases have established that editors who had extensive participation at AE may be deemed constructively warned of the relevant discretionary sanctions. In this case, Dehr has participated extensively in the discussion that resulted in the editing restriction that he attempted to game.

Moreover, this kind of blatant disruptive gaming more than justifies an indefinite block even without the discretionary sanctions. It should have been blindingly obvious to any reasonable editor that evading the spirit of a restriction by making hundreds of edits, each adding a single word, is simply unacceptable. T. Canens (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Dehr

• Per Boing!, carrying on the fight in the unblock request isn't a very promising sign. I don't have a sysop bit to see what Blade is commenting on in the deleted page, but generally trust his judgment. Given that, plus an attempt to carry on an ethnic fight in the unblock request, I see no reason to overturn this.I also moved discussion from the 'results' section below to this section, because it seems like it's where it should be. feel free to rv if I'm wrong.Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Would some of the above editors please explain to me in what way the content edits made by Dehr were "disruptive" to Misplaced Pages? A proper answer please. Are your servers so full that the extra space to record the history of Dehr's one or two word edits would break Misplaced Pages? Was there something wrong with actual content being added? There are no Misplaced Pages rules that individual edits can't be less than a couple of words, and there is no mention in the restriction that was used to block Dehl that the 500+ edit threshhold had to be reached in a specific way. So Dehl had every right to try and avoid the restriction using the course of action he chose. It seems to me that the restriction under which Dehr was blocked was created specifically to block Dehr, and this restriction was created because no existing method could be used to block Dehr. So, if there has been a "gaming of the system", it was done by administrators who have invented a one-off restriction that was created to block one particular editor. Meowy 20:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The restriction has been in place since October of last year: Misplaced Pages:ARBAA2#Standard discretionary sanctions. So, no, it was not created "just for Dehr." — The Hand That Feeds You: 20:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong - the restriction was only created on April 7th: "Nagorno-Karabakh is placed on 1RR per day restriction for all accounts under 500 edits". Here is the dicussion about it: . That was the restriction that T. Canens, by assuming bad faith, claimed Dehl was trying to avoid. I say "by assuming bad faith" because Dehl never actually made any reverts to the Nagorno-Karabakh article after the 500+ edit restriction was introduced (even though he had reached, by making those large number of little edits to other articles, the 500+ edit requirement that would have allowed him to do so). If Dehl had made reverts, then the case for a block would have been arguable, but because he never tried to I don't see under what reason he was blocked at all (beyond the "using AA2, admins can do whatever they want" reason). An editor can't be blocked just because of a suspicion that he might do something that is a blockable offense - the blockable offense has to be actually committed! There is nothing wrong with the Ghaibalishen Massacre article that Dehl created, and no editing rules were broken during its creation. Meowy 20:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions give admins broad ability to block for disruptive activity. So, yes, it's been in place since October. The additional "500 edit" restriction is just a more narrow instance of "what is disruption," and Dehl's specific actions are clearly WP:GAMEy. — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yet the disruption for which he was indefed occurred outside the area covered by discretionary sanctions didn't it? Monty₈₄₅ 22:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

No, they were certainly under that. Per the ArbCom decision cited above:

"Topics related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions."

Unless you're arguing that Ghaibalishen Massacre had nothing to do with Armenia-Azerbaijan, it certainly falls under sanctions. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

No your right. I was mistaken. Monty₈₄₅ 22:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem. It can be easy to miss with all the various things flying back and forth in the A-A disputes. That's why I normally don't comment. As below, it's not worth banging your head over. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like the "using AA2, admins can do whatever they want" reason. Which brings me back to the question that I asked and that remains unanswered. Tell me in what way the edits made by Dehr were disruptive to Misplaced Pages? Meowy 22:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

That has been explained above. I'm sorry that's not good enough for you, but there it is. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I note how comments that initially appeared under "discussion" were later moved to "result" - pretty strong evidence, I think, that there was never any intent to have a real discussion, only an intent to end at a predetermined result (the "admins are always right" result). BTW2, re Jayron32's comment in results, someone is getting ahead of themselves! When this article-specific 500+ edits edit restriction was being discussed I predicted that soon it would be 500+ of a specific length (that prediction is now true), and then more than 1000+ edits and then the edit restriction would be on more than one article, maybe 10 or 20 to start with, then 1000, then 10,000, then hundreds of thousands of articles. Jaron32 - you've gone straight to the millions of articles! Meowy 22:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Aaaand, there's the "it's all a conspiracy" bullshit. ಠ_ಠ I think I'm done here. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Conspiracy? You are the bullshitter. You say any old bull rather than address my points. Meowy 01:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Dehr

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• I don't find the warning required by WP:ARBAA2#Standard_discretionary_sanctions. Looks like the word-by-word edits have been deleted, so they can't be used to "game" anything now. Unless there is evidence of socking or other disruption, inclined to overturn. Awaiting response,. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have no idea how could be considered anything other than blatantly disruptive gaming. No experienced editor could have done that in good faith, and I'd have indeffed even if the article wasn't under discretionary sanctions. We're allowed to block for clear disruption if it's incredibly obvious, even if we haven't gone through all the motions. I'm inclined to agree with the sanction given here, and I'd suggest Dehr wait at least few months before appealing again. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  @Meowy; you're pushing your luck. I'm very close to blocking you for casting aspersions about other editors. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Blatantly disruptive gaming, accusations of bad faith in the unblock request, claims that only one side of the dispute gets blocked -- no unblock needed at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Clear WP:NOTTHEM activity in the request tops off the issues raised by Blade and Sarek. No need to unblock until such a point as the editor has had sufficient time to reconsider their own behaviour in the past, and as they someday move forward (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• Hmm, carrying on the "Armenians vs Azerbaijanis" fight here in the unblock request? I guess it's better than in real life with guns and sticks, but it's not the way to get unblocked. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  @Meowy; The restriction described at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive113#Winterbliss is quoted as "Editors with less than 500 article edits, less than three months old or are anonymous editors are under a 1RR per day restriction with no exceptions". Dehr created the article Ghaibalishen Massacre and made hundreds of very small edits to it, building the article one word at a time, to get his edit count up to the 500. In my opinion that's clear bad faith and blatantly gaming the system. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

@Meowy; My view is that the one-word-at-a-time creation of Ghaibalishen Massacre on April 11 (which was after the restriction was imposed) was blatant gaming of the system to get out from under the restriction, even if Dehr did not go on to break 1RR on Nagorno-Karabakh. That alone, in my view, shows a bad faith approach to collegial editing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Clearly a justified block per WP:GAME. It would be better if the restriction were expanded to indefinite 1RR for all editors, as all ethnic conflict areas should be. Regardless, however, this was a clear and blatant attempt to bypass the restrictions. --Jayron32 22:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

User:70.147.72.167 making personal attacks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I met this user a while ago and he's very abusive, and makes personal attacks. He calls everyone trolls and makes joking and vandalism edits to Misplaced Pages. See 1st diff against Mtking; second upon me, as I gave the warning. Please put a block on this user. Dipankan 13:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

And more. Dipankan 13:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Dipankan stalking users, making threats. Could a real mod come and please take away this trolling mod's access. He's really only mad because of a discussion we had on a completely different website on their forums. He wants to pretend that he's known me for a long time and that I call "everybody" a troll, but "everybody" just happens to be him and 2 of his friends who are trolls. His behind is hurting and this is all he can do. Plus nobody can block me anyway lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.147.72.167 (talk) 13:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, calling Dipankan a "trolling mod" and then claiming that "no one can block you"? Knock it off. You're only supposed to comment here if you are trying to address the issues that Dipankan raised. Bmusician 13:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe they're looking for someone to disabuse them of the notion that they can't be blocked Blackmane (talk) 13:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

User:ElliotJoyce

ElliotJoyce (talk · contribs) is edit-warring on at least three articles that I am aware of. He was reported to WP:ANEW sixteen hours ago, but the report has not been acted upon. He has now made six reverts at African slave trade. Will somebody act on the ANEW report? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 18:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The 6 reverts do not go to the same content, and as far as reverting the edits of Ackees goes, this individual has consistently changed information on various articles in Misplaced Pages that either contradict the source or are POV. For example, please observe his edits on the African Slave Trade page, where he directly contradicted the sourced material several times in effort to insert his own content in the article. ElliotJoyce (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

"An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." — WP:3RR -- Scjessey (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and blocked the user for 48 hours. The edit warring with multiple editors involved is quite clear from the edit history, and i cannot fail to notice wikihounding due to the sudden revent spree of Ackees edits on pages the user has never edited before. Also, comments such as this and this don't exactly inspire confidence either. Excirial 19:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for support - racism, improper admin conduct?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On the African American article, absolutely no mention is given to the multi-racial ancestry of African Americans.

e.g. see here http://en.wikipedia.org/Multiracial_American#African_Americans specifically the 2nd paragraph and the next section on Admixture

"A 2003 study found an average of 18.6% (±1.5%) European admixture in a population sample of 416 African Americans from Washington, DC.

Based on Mark Shriver's research, historian Henry Louis Gates, Jr. put African American ancestry in these terms: 58 percent of African Americans have at least 12.5 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one great-grandparent); 19.6 percent of African Americans have at least 25 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one grandparent); 1 percent of African Americans have at least 50 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one parent); and 5 percent of African Americans have at least 12.5 percent Native American ancestry (equivalent to one great-grandparent)."

I find this highly racist - the complete neglection of other race's contributions to the African American population is simply sickening, as if they are somehow worse less than the African contributions. For comparison, other groups - for example, Mexicans, Brazilians, etc - have widely reported and celebrated mixed-race history. I get the feeling like certain users are trying to suppress the mixed race history of African Americans and try to keep them "pure" (which is, obviously, racist).

I feel like this is mainly perpetuated by an administrator editor, "Malik Shabazz". In reply to me, he posted this comment:

"When Italians mentions the genetic contributions of Africans to the Italian genome, we can argue about how racist it is that African Americans are defined by their sub-Saharan ancestry."

So clearly, by the above message, this user harbours an agenda and somehow resents the fact that African Americans have such a diverse racial admixture.

Please help. I abhor racism of all forms, yet this is allowed to happen, clear as day? Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but I honestly don't see that study is racist. Especially in the light of "suppress(ing) the mixed race history of African Americans," when the study is clearly about ... the mixed race history of African Americans. Given the sample size and location, it's not surprising that European ancestry dominated the findings. This wasn't a broad study of the whole country, after all.

Now, if you're saying Henry Louis Gates Jr was applying this to the whole country, that would be a problem. Context is the key, though. I'm not getting that impression from what's posted above. I'd have to find the source to double check but, off the cuff, it sounds like he was only applying this to the individuals covered by the survey. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

No offense, but you completely misunderstood what I am complaining about. I apologise if I was not clear. I am saying that the omission of the mixed-race history of African Americans, in the African American article, is racist. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You're not making a coherent argument. The text cited about does cover the mixed-race history of African Americans. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Where, in the African American article, is an in-depth mention of the mixed-race history of African Americans? Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• You seem to be edit-warring to reinsert this material, which cites (among other sources) Steve Sailer (whose views on race could charitably be called extreme) and a YouTube video of a George Lopez comedy bit. Before you come to WP:AN/I and accuse other editors of racism and suppressing history, you might want to consider that you're being reverted because you're edit-warring poor-quality sources into the lead of a high-profile article. MastCell  22:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

No it isn't and this is not the forum to discuss content.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It is, however, the place to discuss behavior issues. If the insertion of poorly sourced material and its reversion prompted the claims of racism, that's valid to bring up here. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Leaf Green Warrior needs to take a deep breath and back off. With this edit he labelled the two of us that disagree with him as "ignorant". He was given sound advise by other editors to cool it -- apparently he/she has decided to double down and add "racism" to his charges. The problem is not Malik -- the problem is Leaf. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

@Leaf It may seem obvious, and logical that conduct by an admin is admin conduct, but it isn't. This forum is to discuss admin actions such as blocks. Not ordinary edits.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps leaf should read racism, and truly understand the definition of the word. Not every subject relating to race has roots in racism. This situation, as far as I can tell, has nothing to do with racism. ‑Scottywong| speak _ 22:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• FYI - This is also being discussed at the Help Desk: I feel like I'm outnumbered by ignorant people on an article. What should my next move be? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick, I appreciate that, but I don't believe this is a normal edit concern. I believe that an admin is using his powers and weight to ensure that an article stays racist and neglecting of other races. Now, if anyone would actually - God forbid - like to discuss the actual ANI I posted, as opposed to irrelevant trivialities.. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify, as there seems to be some confusion. I will attempt to be very clear here. African Americans are not purely of "black sub-Saharan African" descent. African Americans have, for example, very high levels of admixture with Native Americans, East Asians, and Europeans (I think the statistic is that African Americans are, on average, only 69% "black sub-Saharan African".) Given this hugely significant admixture, on the Misplaced Pages page, not a single mention is given to any of these other races. A purely neutral person reading the article would be wrongly led to believe that African Americans are 100% purely "black sub-Saharan African". There is a complete neglection of any mention of other races, which is racist.Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for support - racism, improper admin conduct?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I hope it's okay if I try this again - my other request got spammed to high hell. I will attempt to be very clear and concise.

African Americans are not purely of "black sub-Saharan African" descent. African Americans have, for example, very high levels of admixture with Native Americans, East Asians, and Europeans (I think the statistic is that African Americans are, on average, only 69% "black sub-Saharan African".)

Given this hugely significant admixture, on the Misplaced Pages page, not a single mention is given to any of these other races. A purely neutral person reading the article would be wrongly led to believe that African Americans are 100% purely "black sub-Saharan African". There is a complete neglection of any mention of other races, which is racist.

This is being perpetuated by certain users (Such as Malik) who are blocking any attempts to mention other races apart from black sub-Saharan African.

This is not an edit dispute.

I am requesting non-specific help (whatever you deem as appropriate). For example, blocking of the user from editing the article, a lock of the article, or a lock on editing out mention of other race's genetic contribution to African Americans.

Thank you Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

See above.--ukexpat (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Literally all of the above discussion was irrelevant to the request. Please don't spam this one, too. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a sensitive topic, and unlike other racial groups in the US, for two reasons: (1) the "one-drop" rule during Jim Crow, where any traceable African ancestry meant you were Negro, couldn't marry white folks, and would get lynched if you tried to vote; and (2) the fact that much of your white ancestry came from rape, both during slavery and during the Jim Crow era, so your ancestors were bastards. Thus talking about either lineage can be difficult. That said, I think (2) is more of a sore spot than (1). Black people take pride in their African ancestry; they are generally not so enthused about their European ancestry. This is a problem emotionally with those DNA ancestry tests: since only a single ancestor can be traced back, you might try tracing your roots to Africa only to find that your only known distant ancestor was white. Since US society still insists that you're black, this can really mess with your identity. — kwami (talk) 22:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You're damn right it's a sensitive topic - and the page is currently a slap in the face to all those Native Americans, East Asians and Europeans that contributed to the culture and genealogy of the African American population. As I said, to not mention them is simply racist. We celebrate how Mexicans are a mixture of mostly Native American, with some African and some European. We celebrate how Argentinians are a mixture of mostly European, with some Native American and some African. And yet racists try to suppress the fact that African Americans are a mixture of mostly African, with some Native American, some European and some East Asian.Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This is certainly a touchy topic with many diverse opinions.This footage is from a Theroux documentary on Black Nationalism.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 22:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan Premier League T20 and User:NHPak

NHPak (talk · contribs), no doubt the same person as 39.54.35.26 (talk · contribs), has been removing sourced information from the above article and replacing it with inadequately sourced material despite warnings. It's gone on long enough and somebody should probably block the account and IP. Nev1 (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, account blocked indefinitely and IP blocked for a week. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Nev1 (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire talk page and discussion

Regarding Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire talk page and discussion here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire

I feel that a number of editors are ganging up on anyone who proposes keeping this article. The tone is uncivil, biting the newbies and nonconstructive. Editors have asked for explanation, help, evidence, guidance and clarification - but have instead been shot down in flames. Looking at the edit history of some of those involved, I honestly believe looking at the contributions of User:Salimfadhley ; User talk:Fmph and User:Dominus Vobisdu that there seems to be a cabal with a single interest of deleting such pages. 213.246.90.36 (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I fixed your link. 28bytes (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

People disagree. That's what's happening there - people are disagreeing with you on whether the article meets guidelines for inclusion, that's all. I think you threw out the accusations of bullying quite early. Those are completely unhelpful. If you can provide some diffs of people being uncivil or non-constructive then that's a different matter. If you can't, then I think you'll just have to deal with the fact that most of the editors there just happen to believe the article is not suitable. (Also, a cabal with the single interest of deleting pages about schools? That would be the most boring, pointless cabal in the world...) Bunnies! Leave a message 00:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your humour and reply. I can deal with disagreements. I'm happy to accept it if an admin wants to throw the article out - I just want to know why, and how I can edit better to avoid this kind of thing happening. I think the abuse and dismissive tone of the editors is unfair. I want to do the right thing, produce a good article, one which meets the notability standard. Will someone please tell me clearly, what is wrong with the article, so I can try and do the positive and constructive thing, which would be to try and fix it. That's all I'm asking. I don't expect to be crapped on for asking that. Every time I've (and others) asked them to explain what the issue is, they quote policies, avoid answering, put up some patronising comment and refuse to give a clear reason which I can look at, and work out a way of improving the article from. That kind of offhanded and uncivil behaviour gives this place a bad name - in my view. As for the 'diffs' I'm sorry but I don't know how to do those - but if you look at the users' talk pages and their edit history you will see that the same behaviour is evident on many other pages and with many other editors. I really want to do the right thing here - but if noone is prepared to be reasonable then it really is too much stress and hassle to waste my evenings on - I have a family that's more important than all this. 213.246.90.36 (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

A diff is like this, showing an edit to a page. I have looked at the article talk and the AFD discussion and I really don't see why you think this was done out of spite. The other users are quoting policies, yes, the notability policies that they think the article fails. If their tone is unpleasant it's probably because they've been accused of bullying and witch-hunting because they are examining the notability of the article in question. I haven't the time to examine the sources of the article in-depth to see if I think it's adequately meeting WP:RS or WP:GNG, but from the discussion on the AFD, the other users feel that the sources are inadequate. I appreciate that you don't want the article to be deleted, but can't you see that your own behaviour is highly imperfect? Accusing others of bullying never helps. Remember to comment on content, not the editors themselves. Bunnies! Leave a message 00:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Planetary boundaries and Antarctica wikilink

Bare with me this is the first time I've done this. I'll have to leave within twenty minutes. 97.87.29.188 ([[User talk:== Planetary boundaries and Antarctica wikilink ==

Bare with me this is the first time I've done this. I'll have to leave within twenty minutes. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC) I've less than five minutes. I'll attempt to notify Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin again. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Is any admin action required here?--ukexpat (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)|talk]]) 23:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I've less than five minutes. I'll attempt to notify Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin again. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Is any admin action required here?--ukexpat (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, yes. A 6-month (minimum) block of 97.87.29.188 (talk · contribs) for 3RR at Planetary boundaries, and authority to block, even by involved admins, the obvious clones when they reappear. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

A few of the clones can be found at User:Arthur Rubin/IP list. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little disturbed by the edit warring to remove the link, even though it is the correct interpretation of WP:OVERLINK. Where are the attempts to start a discussion? Monty₈₄₅ 00:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

There was some discussion of the IP-hopping editor's overlinking on that talk page, dating back to last year. Antartica is just his newest selection for overlinking. And that's just this article. I suppose I'll have to bring it up on AN3, noting that this particular war is stopped by (temporary) edit protection, and he apparently hasn't edit-warred to insert the specific link he was blocked for in February since his unblock (although his clones did reinsert it during the block). As I and others have said before, the only solution is permanent semi-protection of all articles loosely connected to climate change, or immediate block on clone detection (for admins, even involved admins) and our considering him banned. He edit-warred using other IPs for at least the first two weeks of his block, and probably for the entire length of his block.

There had been attempts to discuss his overlinking as far back as 2009; recently, he's been mechanically claiming WP:AUDIENCE whenever one of his overlinks is reverted. There had been attempts to discuss his other absurd edits, including inserting global warming whenever climate change appears, his addition of links on talk pages saying something like "this looks helpful" (especially when it is totally unreliable and has nothing to do with the subject of the article, although it resembles the title of the article -- when questioned, he says it looks helpful on another article, then, when ignored, he acts on it in that article); adding REDLINKS of books to article on the author; wikilinking with quotes (and now, when he realizes that it's inappropriate, adding the link to the "See also" section, even though the link clearly has absolutely nothing to do with the concept expressed by the author); etc. I think something needs to be done here, although user bans are usually discussed at AN. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive723#Michigan troll(s), for a recent discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Arthur...any ban evaders in Michigan you can think of? When you trace the IP's, do they all come up from Kalamazoo?--MONGO 02:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, some, in the past, have geolocated to Grand Rapids. The current set all seem to be Kalamazoo. But geolocation is not always reliable. For example, it's been reported that one provider's "Smart phones" all geolocate to the same area, regardless of where in the US the phones are. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

WholesaleChinajerseys

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

This blocked user spammed on its talk page. Please consider revoking his/her talk page access. Mathonius (talk) 01:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

•  Done MBisanz 01:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Difficulties with Tenebrae?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is it just me, or is there something about User:Tenebrae (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)? I have made requests for closure in WP:AN/RFC#Talk:Blackmark (novel)#Move? Maybe there is no need for discussion here, is there? --George Ho (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

See the response at WP:AN/RFC#Talk:Blackmark (novel)#Move? You are correct: there is no need for discussion here.--Shirt58 (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Admin Attention on MMA

I think it is time for me to post here about MMA and the off-wiki activity going on, following on from Some goon on Misplaced Pages is trying to get all of the UFC Event pages removed(I particularly like the bit about how WP update with results before they announce the decision in the cage) , I think some independent and more experienced (admin) eyes are needed at the UFC articles listed at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Martial arts, I have not notified any one editor about this as there are far too many to select out individually, and though I suspect I know the wiki account of the author of that article my understanding naming it could be WP:OUTING.Mtking 01:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards