Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

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

---

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

Start a new discussion

User:RobJ1981's disputes with various editors

Every since he has had a problem with me here: List of characters in Bully, he has been uncivil and shown a lot of bad faith. A few recent examples: [1] (first time he blanked my comment on the talk page). I reverted it, and told him about Template:Notyours. Later, he once again blanked my comment out: [2]. Then there is this: [3], which I see also as bad faith. It should be noted I hadn't edited that Bully list page (or it's talk) for a while, so his original attack (found here: [4], wasn't necessary at all. There was no need to drag past editors into the discussion, and basically drag their name in the mud because of past disputes. Then he butted into this alert: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Angrymansr, due to past issues with me. I also posted this at Wikiquette alerts, the issue with him seems to fit both pages in my view. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Rob posted this exact same thing on Wikiquette Alerts already.

Not to mention he has been reported on wikiquette alerts by me about a week ago, where he was told by an administrator to knock it off. Exact quote. McJeff (talk) 06:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Recommend you avoid each other. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• • I don't think that's fair to be quite honest - why should my wikipedia editing be constrained because he won't quit harassing me after having been told to knock it off? McJeff (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit hard to avoid him, when he follows me around on Wikipedia and posts on a majority of the same talk pages I do. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We've been involved in a grand total of three articles. One of them was your bad faith AfD on Vicious and Delicious. Another was the List of Characters in Bully. The only article you were working on that I later stepped into is Smackdown vs Raw 2008, and that was after Angrymansr brought your behavior on that article to my attention on your warning at Wikiquette alerts.

And might I remind you that you were instructed to stop the bad faith attacks on me, and that accusing me of wikistalking is bad faith, especially since it's not just a false accusation but a blatant attempt at smearing me? McJeff (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't talk about smearing: when you do that to me on the alerts page, and everywhere else where you mention my name. I wouldn't have such a problem, if you didn't drag me into the Bully talk page again. Just because my name was mentioned, didn't mean you needed to respond in the way you did. I clearly wasn't editing the talk or article, so my name didn't need to be mentioned (except for the fact that I didn't edit there anymore). Then all the removing of my comment (that you finally realized wasn't the correct thing to do), didn't help matters. Don't get me started on the AFD. I had every right to nominate it, and it wasn't in bad faith. You and Dan took it personal, that's not my problem. Don't make up things (and/or twist things around) to make me look bad, so you look good to the editors that read this. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think I took the AFD to Vicious and Delicious personal then? I didn't know the article was up for deletion until McJeff asked me to join the debate. He asked me that since he knows I'm a wrestling fan. Secondly your comments there at the debate, You say there thats it's likely that he told me to join the debate, which isn't true, then you stated that I didn't make any edits to wrestling articles, which is true yes, but that does not mean that I can't voice my opinions on a wrestling subject, or if wrestling article should stay. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You are acting as if he was the one who mentioned your name first out of the blue on the discussion page. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 09:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You had a right to AfD Vicious and Delicious. That doesn't mean you did it for the right reason. For that matter, I had every right to participate in the Angrymansr user alert, so maybe you should stop bringing that up like it matters. McJeff (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Have to agree with User:Stifle on this one. If you guys can't make an actual effort to "just get along" than you should both make the effort to avoid each other. It isn't down to either one of you. My suggestion is for you both to stay away from any articles currently in the middle of your dispute and to double check your own civility on talk pages, edit summaries, etc. to help make sure these sort of issues don't occur again. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I tried my best to leave the article we both have edited (the Bully list), but he didn't want to leave things alone. Now, it's Jeff, Dan and Angrymansr ganging up on me... just to cause problems and harass me. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

So of course the appropriate reaction is to [5] wikistalk me]. McJeff (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

For the past couple of months, I have tried avoiding RobJ1981; after purposely not participating in various XfDs he started, today however he nominated an article for deletion that I was the last editor to edit prior to its nomination. In my keep argument in the MfD, I did not insult Rob or chastise him. And because this article concerns "in popular culture", which has a Wikiproject for which I am a member, I listed it there, but Rob is starting an edit war with the members of the group over its being listed there. As you can see from my talk page, another member of the group strongly disagrees with what Rob has done. Rob has castigated that editor on his talk page. Until now, I have avoided jumping in on Rob's disputes with Angrymansr, Dan, and McJeff, because I do not like piling on someone and I thought we had in effect avoided each other effectively for a couple of months now; I guess that hope was wrong. And so, for it's worth, these problems indicated above have occured with a large number of editors and over much of Rob's Wikipedia-history. Eyrian was one of only three editors to persistently go after me since my return to Wikipedia in the summer. Dannycali was blocked as a sock puppet after a check user and a different check user turned up multiple socks of Eyrian. That leaves RobJ1981 who like Dannycali and Eyrian has a staunch anti-in popular culture mentality and a concerted aggression against myself. I strongly urge you to consider the evidence I have submitted in the Alkivar case as well as that submitted below. Anyway, now RobJ1981 is removing my rescue tags to articles! Please see [6], [7], and [8]. These articles are not ones that he nominated for deletion and I limit my use of the rescue tag to maybe one or two articles at most a day and only for articles that I also make an effort to improve. I am avoiding reverting his latest edit, but I think his removal of the tag is in bad faith. He has been cautioned about this behavior: [9], [10], [11], and [12]. He even admits that he will follow me around: [13] and [14]. And admins are not taking kindly to his edits about me: [15] and [16]. I suppose I am just a little concerned that I will not be able to participate in any AfDs that he nominates without him posting after me or commenting about me. Here are just some of RobJ1981's recent edits after or about me (notice the one on January 2nd, i.e. his first post since not posting for a few days in about me): [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], and [44]. Please note that I even stayed out of this "in popular culture" AfD he started: [45]. I also avoided this AfD: [46]. And I avoided these ones as well: [47] and [48]. I did, however, participate in this one discussion: [49]. So, of the various AfDs he started or participated in the duration of those weeks, I initially only participated in one, whereas he had posted in nearly every one after me, removed my rescue tag from an article, and even left comments in AfDs hoping admins would disregard my arguments. Finally, it seemed as if we had left each other alone for a couple months then until today. Please also consider this: [50]. Please also see [51]. The category is not exactly flooded and those that I did not myself tag, I also attempted to improve. He STILL even after another admin's comment to him about his commenting on my posts did so anyway: [52]. I gave a few reasons why I thought the article should be saved, but he fixates on one aspect of my remark. Can we not participate in the same AfDs, even ones that he did not nominate, without him leaving notes to or about me rather than about the article? DGG cautioned Rob about doing this: [53]. Yet, Rob kept doing so. If I tried avoiding AfDs Rob started or posted in, why was it so hard for him to do the same for me? Also, please note that RobJ1981 is also edit warring with and getting into conflict with many other users: [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], etc. Notice here: [81], [82], and [83]. He writes: “the consensus is to merge” and insults Smile Lee. 6 for merge, 4 for keep is hardly “consensus.” He writes: “Smile Lee is the only one that refuses to accept the consensus.” Uh, myself and others wanting to keep do not want to merge either. And even with Kyaa the Catlord acknowledging that it was no discussion, Rob just went ahead and redirected anyway. See also this discussion: [84]. Notice the final person to post says the decision is to have a table and earlier in the discussion all those who disagree with Rob. How does Rob react? [85]. Is he just ignoring the same talk page?! Rob has also been warned for false accusations post-Thanksgiving: [86]. If you scroll through RobJ1981's talk page history, you’ll also see that RobJ1981 even disagreed to an offer at mediation in one of the disputes. I especially find JzG’s comments to RobJ1981 compelling: “Having proven beyond reasonable doubt that they are separate accounts, creating a second sockpuppetry case against them looks a lot like harassment. I have deleted it. Do not pursue that line again.” In other words, his aggressiveness toward me, McJeff, Angrymansr, and Dan the man and now ErgoSum is hardly new as he has done so with others even after well-established admins told him otherwise. Please consider the above in conjunction with all the other evidence I presented of Rob's incivility and assumption of bad faith. I do not get why he still will not leave certain editors alone and why he keeps getting into conflict with others as well. It would be nice to be able to edit without Dannycali, Eyrian, and/or RobJ1981 hovering over me when I have sought mentorship and frequently ask admins for advice and help with editing. Thank you for your time and efforts! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles: it's unreasonable to tell an active member of a Wikiproject to stop participating at AFDs for that project's articles just because another editor is a rude and overly aggressive deletionist. This has already been through a wikiquette alert and an independent observer determined it was RobJ1981 who needed to cool down. Roi has been consistently polite, and as far as I can tell nobody is ganging up against or wikistalking RobJ1981. When several people acting independently all see the same problems with the one editor's behavior it's time for self-examination; there's a chance the consensus is right. Durova^Charge! 01:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

He makes claims of me stalking him: (here as one example: [87], but he does the same thing here: [88]: I created a MFD and he commented in it. Being a hypocrite isn't the answer. RobJ1981 (talk) 16:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You guys are both edit warring (here, here, here, and here) at the moment and you were edit-warring with a wiki-project the other day. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

More stalking by McJeff: [89]. 7 minutes later he posts in it: [90]. I asked for outside opinions on the matter, not his view (which is already clear on the talk page of the article that I mentioned). Watch, in a matter of minutes he will reply here because he checks my contributions regularly it seems. Perhaps it might be bad faith to call it stalking, but frankly if he wants to end it: he can ignore sections instead of posting in them to add fuel to this conflict. Then there is his sneaky behavior: (a revert with no explanation: [91]. Then there is this: [92], he's removing maintenance tags that don't have the problems fixed. From the history of it: he's been edit warring with me (along with others) about the notability tag, and now he's been bold enough to remove all the tags for no good reason. It takes two people to have a conflict. He needs to stop worrying about other's actions, if his behavior is just as bad. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You see, the thing that bothers me most about this whole incident is I know my reputation is getting smeared because of the incidiousness of Rob's attacks on me. They're not really the kind of thing you can ignore, but responding to all of the things he's accused me of makes me look like a bickering prat. And of course I'm not blameless myself, but it's hard to be 100% reasonable and even handed when you have another editor who's going over everything you do with a fine tooth comb, waiting for you do anything that could even remotely be interpreted as a slip up, so he has more ammunition to use in his crusade against your general existence on wikipedia.

In regards to the Smackdown vs Raw article, I'd like to direct people to the discussion I started, where his defense for himself was to accuse me of wikilawyering while refusing to defend his own position. Edit warring? I guess, but when you have one person who believes that they and they alone control the wikipedia policy and attempts to push that into the article, I'd call it a violation of WP:OWN, and borderline vandalism on the grounds that he knows he's aggrivating just about everyone and continuing to make his edits anyway.

I will not discuss the Dungeons & Dragons stuff unless an administrator requests me to, because I don't believe it has any relevance here. McJeff (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

McJeff continues his uncivil ways: [93]. His newest claim is I'm rounding up "anti-roster list buddies". I contacted one user about it, and I did the mature thing by listing the issue on the video game project talk page. There is NO doubt, you are edit warring. Don't thrown ownership on me, when that's the attitude you've had since Angrymansr told you about the article in the first place. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Time to open an RFC/U then

OK, now that some of the evidence has been aired above, I suspect now is the time to open an RFC/U case regarding Robj1981's harassment of other users. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to do this. Maybe Le Grande Roi would like to start? He seems a highly competant wikipedian. McJeff (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment; however, it is worth it for you to gain your own experience with such aspects of Wikipedia and all you need to do is follow the instructions at WP:RFC/U. You might want to check with User:Mangojuice first about how to go about starting a new one since he deleted an old one a day ago. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I can handle creating a new one I think. But to do so I need evidence that at least two users have tried to civilly work things out with Rob to no avail. I've done so myself, but I don't think Angrymansr or DanTheMan have tried. Have you? McJeff (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please see my post in the above section and check his and my talk page histories for evidence. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Here we go. [94] Posting it here so I don't lose it while writing this bad boy up. McJeff (talk) 04:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, like that. Ideally, I wish we could all just edit civily and agree to disagree when we reach an impasse and I urge you to be careful not to also engage in any edit-warring or make any regrettable remarks (if you think it might possibly be construed as incivil, don't write it). If you haven't done so, be sure to make an attempt to resolve any differences peacefully. Anyway, though, perhaps more importantly than the section you link to is the administrator's warning below against making further stalking accusations against various users, which could result in a block: see here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I see that McJeff has in fact started an RFC/U at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RobJ1981. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Another instance of a hatchet job by "insiders" on the unsuspecting

If you would like to see what sort of hatchet job can be done by Wikipedia "insiders" on unsuspecting "outsiders" who happen to stumble upon bogus articles concerning their field of expertise, have a look at the recent AfD discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Myrzakulov_equations_%282nd_nomination%29

Carefully read, the history of the event should be pretty clear, although this is only the end result as it appears after numerous deletions and other manipulations by User: Cheeser1, involving contributions to the debate that had been provided by well-meaning and well-qualified "outsiders" who had only their expertise in the subject to offer, but no Wikipedia experience, skills or history. The criticism by the shocked Nominator for Deletion of how the procecss was proceeding: by bullying, unauthorized deletions of valid comments of experts; false accusations of "sock-puppetry" and every other dishonest manipulative technique in the book were systematically deleted, re-ordered, and scrambled by User: Cheeser1, who seemed well-trained and experienced in these skills. All this was witnessed by, and supported by no less than seven Wikipedia "administrators", despite the nominator's repeated (unheeded) pleas for assistance. The "talk" page for the AfD , in final form, consists mainly of the attacks by User: Cheeser1 on the nominator's integrity, and that of other experts in the field who had volunteered their opinions. Besides this, there was a "behind the scenes" campaign to impugn the nominator's good intentions, and integrity, on the "adminstrator's notice board" that is now so buried in the innards of this site that it is probably unrecoverable. All of this, needless, to say, was going on till the very end, without the Nominator's knowledge, but with the apparent approval of various "administrators" involved in this "back yard" discussion of tactics and process.

In the end, the debate was cut off without the Nominator being given the opportunity to make the summary of his argument for deletion, which had been announced since the very beginning of the discussion. Instead - perhaps more appropriately, given the circus that had been created by User: Cheeser1 - and blamed by him, and others, upon the nominator - the last words were those of the author of the AfD article, who called upon God to support her in her cause, since she had been under attack previously by the "Russians" and had already endured two wars!

I was the Nominator for Deletion of the article, and I know of no "Russians" to have taken any part in the debate, but Iearned a great deal about Wikipedia from the experience. More generally, I learned much about the sinister consequences of anonymity combined with aggressive instincts, and ignorance. I immediately deleted my user acccount, and have no intention of making further contributions to Wikipedia that would expose me to the machinations and dishonesty of such experienced "insiders", whose skills and aggressions seem to have been honed mainly by playing out fictional battles in video games.24.202.238.172 (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Previous AN/I discussions have been recovered from the innards for any interested (1, 2) --Onorem♠Dil 13:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Although you are logged out, you have identified yourself as User:R Physicist. It appears that you are disappointed by the results at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrzakulov equations (2nd nomination). Much of the chaos there appears to have been caused by your tactics, which had a very disruptive effect. Rather than blaming others, I suggest you look at your own actions, hear the feedback that others have provided, and think about better strategies for the future. No administrative action is required at this time. Jehochman ^Talk 13:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no "attacks" and only see your disruptive editing styles and practices. What administrative action is required here? seicer | talk | contribs 13:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

After making the above comment I noticed that R Physicist has exercised the right to vanish. That right does not include returning as an IP to take pot shots at content adversaries. Perhaps we should block this IP for a while to aid the user in vanishing. Jehochman ^Talk 13:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The IP address is now taking a much needed one-week vacation. seicer | talk | contribs 13:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait. I'm confused. If someone exercises the right to vanish, does that mean we block them automatically if they return? I don't see that anywhere here or on meta. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No, but if they return only to disrupt and accuse other editors of crap, then yes. You can't exercise your right to vanish, then return and abuse the process and try to hide. seicer | talk | contribs 14:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

How does identifying himself as the moderator mean he's trying to hide?

Has he made this point elsewhere? If not, how does reporting something at AN/I count as disruption? He's reported it, other people can express their disagreement, we don't have to then block the IP, particularly not saying "much needed vacation." Would you rather he went off to Wikipedia Review? --Relata refero (disp.) 14:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate block - he's not banned, and I don't see what's disruptive about this section. --Random832 (contribs) 15:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Seconded, after an initial statement of 'no admin action required' and without further warning an questionable admin action. It also raises the question if we want to hear feedback ourselves or just give that advice to others.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was just a terrible, terrible, terrible block. Simply shameful. You probably can't begin to imagine how bad that looked to an ordinary user such as a myself. It certainly did far more harm than either simply directing him to the PUMP or genuinely considering his criticism, constructively responding to it, and thanking him for his contributions. My hat is off to the admins who disagreed. Jpmonroe (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• I watched that AFD and it seemed to me that User: Cheeser1's interference with the communications of User:R Physicist was too uncivil and bitey. User: Cheeser1 subsequently removed a 3RR warning that I placed on the talk page of another inexperienced editor involved in this fracas. User: Cheeser1 seems to think he can amend the comments of others as he pleases. This seems disruptive since, if we are unable to communicate, then much confusion and frustration will result. It seems apparent that User:R Physicist is still boiling with rage about his treatment here and, as he seems to be a senior academic, this seems a poor outcome for this project. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• "I think we really need to much more strongly insist on a pleasant work environment and ask people quite firmly not to engage in that kind of sniping and confrontational behavior. We also need to be very careful about the general mindset of "Yeah, he's a jerk but he does good work". The problem is when people act like that, they cause a lot of extra headache for a lot of people and drive away good people who don't feel like dealing with it. Those are the unseen consequences that we need to keep in mind." That quote, by Jimbo himself, adequately explains that just because he is a "senior academic," that does not excuse his poor behavior. I'd rather see a lot of diligent, polite editors who may not be as "intelligent" than one "intelligent" editor driving away many or causing disruption. seicer | talk | contribs 14:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Both Cheeser1 and R Physicist behaved poorly. The latter should have been extended more courtesy since he is new here - this is the point of WP:BITE. I suppose that there are technically better ways of dealing with someone who is too prolix, e.g. condensing their comments into a show/hide toggle. I'm not sure how to do this technically myself. The technical details of this place require a huge learning curve aand this is especially true of forum-type threads which the software seems to support poorly. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

  They're not the only ones who behaved poorly - "Ngn" - who appears to have a conflict of interest - really _was_ making implications that the attempt to have it deleted was some kind of russian conspiracy. --Random832 (contribs) 15:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

  Oh, CW, your laziness belies your disingenuity. If you'd bothered to look at what ACTUALLY happened here, you'd have realized that instead of doing things that you can oh-so-justly criticise me for (mister has-previous-undisclosed-disputes-with-cheeser), you would have noticed that I was doing EXACTLY WHAT YOU SUGGESTED. Apparently, by doing so, something you suggest but are incapable of doing, I garner harsh criticism from you. Pathetic. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)Quite so. That's no reason to drive him away, however. I too watched that AfD, and found it extremely confusing, but with inappropriateness on both sides. We aren't supposed to be pushing experts away, we should go the extra mile to keep them. On the one hand we tolerate enormous rudeness in areas where we believe anti-science editors have to kept in line, and on the other hand this... Not good. Incidentally, who has been driven away by User:R Physicist?

I note also my concerns above are still unanswered. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Seicer's comment appears well-intentioned, but more concern with consequence and the darker side of human motivation seems necessary. From my perspective, User: Cheeser1 behavior just gets winks or is at least ignored by otherwise respectable math/science editors. MIT's current User:Stevenj and MIT's former User:Michael Hardy are good examples of such math/science editors who engage in debates with Cheeser, who never, ever tell Cheeser to stop. To me, Jonson's and Hardy's silence on User:Cheeser1 amounts to him or her being a teacher's pet sanctioned bully of theirs. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If they have exercised their right to vanish, then return, they have waived the right to vanish, and the User and Talk pages should be restored. Corvus cornix_talk 17:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The new user did a number of things in a way which he apparently did not realise did not fit our practices. People tried to guide him, and he unfortunately thought his ways were better, and ignored the initial guiding. Then a few people came down a lot to hard to stop the incipient disruption, and did so with such a heavy hand as to cause a great deal more disruption. The experienced people here have the responsibility of knowing when to use discretion. I don't think all of them used it, and this turned the simple matter of discussing the article into the much more complex one of how we treat people. Some of our ways do look a little unforgiving under scrutiny by those not accustomed to us. DGG (talk) 07:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

What are 'our' practices. It turns out this guy is a prize-winning physicist, has 200 articles to his name, and leads a respected research institute. The article he wanted deleted was a piece of cruft by a student. Now some nutcase (Seicer) has blocked him with the words "The IP address is now taking a much needed one-week vacation." This may turn out interesting. So what actually are 'our practices'? The points he made in the AfD were actually quite good and coherent. A little pointed, and he made some admins look foolish (as indeed they were). The Rationalist (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It does not help to call other users "nutcases." but as for me, perhaps you didn't notice I was--though more gently--telling the admin involved that he did it wrong? DGG (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It can often help to call people nutcases if that is the case. I agree you were 'gently' telling the admin he was wrong. Sometimes it helps to say it in a way that is not so gentle. I don't see him apologising yet. The Rationalist (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I am quite dismayed at how we have handled and continue to handle this one. I might be somewhat neutral about whether this poorly written article should be kept or not, but I think we were not very welcoming to a newbie. And given that WP:BITE is such a mantra around here, why was it not applied in this case? Wow.--Filll (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to put in my broad agreement with the sentiments of the last few comments. This was a serious loss to article quality, and one made worse by the fact that a valuable person has been sent away thinking that we're a bunch of nutcases. An all-round failure. I'd say an apology on both R Physicist and the IP's talkpage would be a good idea. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I so agree. A little more careful work should have been done on the article (rather than Googling references to the paper), a little more attention to the professor's arguments (which were good) and a little less obsession with the strange process that constitutes 'AfD'. We should truly be ashamed. And Seicer should apologise for the remarks made in the block comment. Unforgiveable. 86.133.181.100 (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all of the people complaining about me here for notifying me! I'm not even going to comment on this absurdity. R physicist DESTROYED that AfD with rants, soapboxing, personal attacks, etc. I tried to clean it up, and got scapegoated for my trouble. Everyone laments, after the fact, that nobody stepped in, fixed it, kept things in line, well that's why - clearly, trying to do so makes you the subject of absurd, frivolous retribution like this from people like R physicist. Weeks after the fact, and now he's back to pick at that same bone one more time. Let's not point out that I took extensive and often unreasonable measures to demonstrate to R physicist that I was attempting to clean up the AfD and keep it streamlined - trying to keep the process rolling, a process that he was trying to use, but failing miserably in letting it run its course. And of course, I did vote delete, so I can't even comprehend what would make him so upset, considering I agreed with him on the only thing he's done on Wikipedia. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that Cheeser1 went too far, but not far too far, and completely understandably. Several people, including Cheeser1, tried to explain to R Physicist that he wasn't following the conventional form of AfD, and that AfD was in no case the place for fundamental debates on the nature of wikipedia. R Physicist responded to this by doing those things more. The AfD was closed as a train wreck largely because of the disruption of process from R Phycisist, and while being new would excuse any mistakes that happened before he was told they were mistakes, they don't excuse the snotty behaviour on being told that they're mistakes, or continuing to make them. While losing an "expert" might be a bad thing, losing someone who can't listen to the community trying to guide them and help them isn't. SamBC(talk) 10:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

So he wasn't following the "conventional" form. So what? The day we block a genuine expert giving us the benefit of his opinion on an issue he feels strongly about in a discussion on how to handle that issue on-WP was a sad day for the project. And I think we need to note that not following the "conventional form" of an process we invented for ourselves is hardly "a mistake". I know that if I came here to try and correct an error that I saw in something I was an expert on, had never edited before, and kept on being told that I was indenting incorrectly or that my general remarks on the misapplication of notability are unwelcome "mistakes", I would hardly appreciate it. And its not just losing an expert that's a bad thing, its pissing him off in the process. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

May I second that: And I think we need to note that not following the "conventional form" of an process we invented for ourselves is hardly "a mistake". . The mistake was to lose a potentially valuable contributor to the project. Who is going to put their hand up for that? The Rationalist (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If the secretary general of the UN, the president of the USA, or queen of England came here, they'd be expected to follow community guidance and follow procedures that we've worked out. When a user is told, politely, that they're doing something incorrectly or in the wrong place, their reaction shouldn't be to argue about that as well. If a user hasn't the humility to accept such feedback, I'm really not convinced that they'd be a valuable contributor if they stayed. It's sad, and I wish they could've been a valuable contributor, but a valuable contributor who insists on eveything being done their way is something of a contradiction. The way that AFD was closed indicates why it's good to stick to the process and form we're used to; so that admins can easily discern consensus. It's also a matter of things being on-topic or not. Now, I'd be more than happy to see the wide-ranging issues brought up in that debate debated in a more appropriate venue, some of them are things that probably need a good discussion about them, but that wasn't the place for it, for many reasons. SamBC(talk) 14:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, the bottom line is that a prize-winning physicist has been shown the door from Wikipedia by a 21 year old student, for remarks that weren't particularly impolite and for some contributions that were informed and valuable. His remarks weren't very well understand (lots of point-missing and the like). That is a bad thing and should perhaps cause us to question how good our process is. It was after all something put together by amateurs and still has an amateur feel. You say The way that AFD was closed indicates why it's good to stick to the process - sorry, what is your point here? And you say If a user hasn't the humility to accept such feedback, I'm really not convinced that they'd be a valuable contributor if they stayed. - perhaps we should have the humility to understand that a 'process' that has had this particular result is deeply flawed, and should be evaluated again. Also, if the Secretary general or Queen of England did come here I hope someone would have the good sense to show a little tact and diplomacy and make whatever capital could be made out of it. This particular incident, by contrast, makes us look like idiots. The Rationalist (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• This [95] from someone at my old university. Also noticeable that the major author of the article appears to be a co-author of the original papers proposing these equations, but I guess that's been debated. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I have reviewed the AfD. R Physicist argues politely and cogently throughout, his only "crime" being ignorance of our AfD standard operating procedure. Cheeser1 refers to R Physicists comments as ""wackopedia" essays", "your rants and polemical essays", "A pathetic display", "R Physicist has so throughly disrupted this discussion", "coming from the guy who has no freaking clue how AfDs work, let's just pretend you didn't open your mouth and make yourself look even more foolish." Our response? A pat on the back for Cheeser1, and a block on R Physicist! I am disgusted. Hesperian 01:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with Hesperian, Rationalist and some of the other recent remarks. I've been struck with the contrast between how this physicist was treated and another case on this page, where administrators and editors discussed and debated for days whether another newcomer's blatantly anti-Semitic and racist remarks were "uncivil" enough to warrant a block. I'm beyond disgusted, I'm fed up. Woonpton (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and unblocked the IP based on the apparent consensus here. Now, back to the substance. What drew my attention to this thread was the inflammatory heading. We really need to educate newcomers that using excessively strident rhetoric does not go over well with our community. Hmmm. We may need to educate some of the regulars as well. What else needs to be done here? Jehochman ^Talk 01:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Now, three days after, administrator User: Jehochman seems to have been sufficiently embarrassed by the subsequent outcry to have reluctantly decided to reverse this instantaneous banishment. (Not a further peep from User:Seicer though.) But even now, he cannot refrain from admonishing me about the use of such an inflammatory term as "hatchet job" in the header. If he takes the trouble to look up the definition e.g., in Dictionary.com he will find that it is very apt indeed in describing what occurred, including his own role, as of 9 mins. after the posting. (He must have a very rapid intelligence to have absorbed all the intricacies of the issue in such record time!) 24.202.238.172 (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC) (alias "R Physicist")

What else needs to be done? Well, instead of blaming the newcomer, it might be more appropriate a few old-timers would educate themselves on WP:BLOCK and WP:BITE. This was just a completely inexcusable farce of a reaction, yet you think the "substance" is that a newbie displayed some emotion? It took 3 days to overturn that block? It's beyond pathetic; it's absurd. But, since I have expressed my opinion "stridently" please feel free to block me for disruption. Jpmonroe (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hesperian, since you clearly haven't read any of our friends, umm... works of prose, let's drop one right here so none of you have the excuse of "oops I didn't check the history!" How's that? I hate to invoke WP:SPADE, but if his polemical anti-Wikipedia essay, which he dropped in the middle of an ongoing AfD, is titled "Wikipedia or Wackopedia" - can you honestly muster the cajones to bitch at me for using the term "Wackopedia"? Seriously? --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Extended content

Wikipedia or Wackopedia? Absurdity upon absurdity. Self appointed pundits who have no scientific competence whatsoever casting aspersions upon precise and pertinent remarks by experts in the field; then insulting them with their contemptible derision and even imperiously commanding them to desist from expressing themselves! Other pundits called "administrators" with no other visible qualifications than the fact that they have made thousands of edits to Wikipedia, and have attained to certain "special powers" through God knows what absurd and arbitrary scrutiny process within this self-referential club. These latter, or at least some of them, apparently feel entitled to register totally unfounded, intimidating remarks like "...a new account. Possibly suspicious." that would be worthy of thought police, to redefine the English language so as to comply with their notions of "Wikipedia usage" and "good practice", to overtly and explicitly express their hostility and contempt for anything that might be viewed as "expert knowledge", and to cast aspersions on the integrity of highly respected, well-known scientists, who have no other motive than to set the record straight regarding scientific content. Is this science fiction, fantasy, an "other-world" nightmare or reality.? What is Wikipedia all about? The tyranny of the ignorant? I am very curious what all these threatening remarks, gratuitous insults and assaults by the uneducated upon the integrity of the knowledgeable leads up to. Is this a serious process, or one in which a number of Wikipedia "insiders" impertinently act out their fantasies of power and importance, while those who, in the real world, are highly qualified scientists and professionals devoted to advancing our actual state knowledge, are silenced by impudent administrators who believe that "expertise" is irrelevant, and only Wikipedia experience and status has any importance? I have a feeling the outcome of this debate will have more significance for Wikipedia than merely whether this poor article is kept or deleted. If the ignorant and the arbitrarily empowered class of "admistrators" and "arbitrators" turn out to be the real decision makers, because they wield, in this "closed shop" the power to overrule all those who actually know the subject, then it will be Wikpedia itself that is on trial in the long run. What, really, is its validity or value as a repository of knowledge or vehicle of its communication? Has it any integrity or reliability, or is it an arbitrary, monstrous mixture of fact and fiction, self-advertising and ignorance, inseparably intertwined? There is after all, a "real world" out there as well, which is not determined by Wikipedia rules, in which little of any value can be achieved through contempt for expertise, and arbitrary, bullying gestures by seasoned, but empty-headed "insiders" and self-appointed "thought police". Having saId this, I will look forward to the barrage of overt attacks, threats, intimidating remarks, citations for violations of rules, and aspersions cast on my character, integrity, competence, etc. that will surely follow from those seasoned "insiders" who feel insulted or threatened by these self-evident remarks. Are there also those who believe in the value of Wikipedia and hold another view? Are there enough of those who do have an adequate respect for knowledge, qualifications, real-word competence and, simply, the truth, who have a say in how Wikipedia is run and decisions are made to tilt the balance? I am curious to see who actually holds sway in this strange "alternative world" that claims to represent "the masses" and knowledge simultaneously.]] R_Physicist (talk) 08:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that screed was helpful in the AfD discussion. Perhaps this editor has such strong feelings about the subject matter that an online collaborative project is not the right hobby for them. Jehochman ^Talk 02:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't say that! You will chase a way an EXPERT! God knows, if anybody should be disrupting Wikipeidia, it's expert physicists with nothing but contempt for Wikipeidia! Or wait, according to Hesperian, I got a pat on the back. Hesperian, please point out where my pat on the back was, because between ANI complaints against me, insults, and condescending, do-nothing criticism from people who ought to have stepped in, I must have missed the pat on the back. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought the rant was pretty good value, and it comes at a point when RP's patience had clearly been exhausted. His point from the beginning was that the article was a piece of cruft that was not notable. Everyone else ignored this, because they didn't understand the mathematics, nor the surrounding subject.

Before this, he made some very cogent points. For example, some people objected that a Google search showed the equations had been mentioned. RP correctly replied A great deal gets published in this field, and not all of it is of the first calibre. The fact that an author has published some papers in respectable journals is certainly not an adequate reason to have a wikipaedia article devoted to them, or to identfy them by the author's name as though this were common usage, and as if the equations had some established importance. and Work of genuine notability is, sooner or later, recognized within the expert community on its own merits, and not by such primitive self-promotional devices as enshrining them in a wikipaedia article that consists of little more than a listing of obscure equations to which the author has attached his own name and a number.

This is a good point. Previously we have allowed articles as long as they appear to have some scholarly content, and can be referenced in the literature. As RP cogently points out, any notability criterion has to reflect whether the scientific community thinks it notable.

It did not help that Cheeser accuses him of ranting. Which he was generally not. Ranting is going on in some tendentious and repetitive and generally incoherent way. RP's comments were 95% cogent and helpful. He has raised some very good points like the one above (how do we recognise the notability of academic work, how do we prevent self-promotion of academic's own works in Wikipedia, and so on. The Rationalist (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I also just noticed the 'Wackipedia' blog comment that Guy linked to above. All the points there are cogent, they deeply challenge our ways of working, and we should think about them. The blog is signed by 'Harnad', who is of course the prize-winning physicist R Physicist who was recently evicted from Wikipedia for supposedly uncivil remarks. And as Guy correctly points out, the main author of the AfD article appears to be a co-author of the original papers proposing these equations. Obvious self-promotion. Guy says 'I suppose that has been debated'. Well R Ph pointed this out early on, and then immediately got accused of a COI. That's when he really got mad. The Rationalist (talk) 06:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] We really need to educate newcomers that using excessively strident rhetoric does not go over well with our community. - I sense irony here. The Rationalist (talk) 06:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. The author of the blog post is in fact Stevan Harnad, a Hungarian-born cognitive scientist, who is in fact the brother of John Harnad who is the prize-winning physicist summarily evicted from Wikipedia for 'ranting'. Also I see that they both seem to have done work with the eminent logician Peter Suber, who is also a WMF board member. This is getting really interesting. The Rationalist (talk) 06:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

A response to the above by "R Physicist"

First of all, I would like to acknowledge the remarkable outpouring of concern, and sympathetic response by a large majority of those who have expressed their opinions above. (I only wish that you had also been there to express your views while the AfD discussion was going on. And most importantly, that just ONE administrator at least had stepped in to halt the abuses that were being perpetrated throughout the process by our friend User: Cheeser1, who has here returned to try once again to justify his conduct. Perhaps he thought that it would be safe to do so, and to sow some further confusion, because he could not be contradicted once again, now that I was "banned" from expressing myself within this forum.)

It is painful to return to the "scene of the crime" - and I had no desire or intention to do so. (A decision made easy by the additional fact of having been blocked from saying anything further within this forum). But, in fairness, I think that the above version of my "rant" (using our above friend's typically offensive terminology), which was extracted out of context, and displayed as though it had been the final version of what appears in the record, should be compared with what actually appears, which was modified after some of the anger that had been engendered by User: Cheeser1's abusive remarks (not to me, but to another highly qualified contributor to the debate) had subsided.

Extended content

A serious critique by the nominator for deletion - and a challenge to participants in the Wikipedia community Absurdity upon absurdity. Self appointed pundits who have no scientific competence whatsoever casting aspersions upon precise and pertinent remarks by experts in the field; then insulting them with their derisory remarks and even imperiously commanding them to desist from expressing themselves! "Administrators" with no other visible qualifications than the fact that they have made thousands of edits to Wikipedia, and have attained to certain special powers through a questionable process of scrutiny within this self-referential setting. The latter, or at least some of them, apparently feel entitled to register totally unfounded, intimidating and derisory remarks like "...a new account. Possibly suspicious." that would be worthy of thought police, to redefine the English language so as to comply with their notions of "Wikipedia usage" and "good practice", and to overtly express their hostility to anything that might be viewed as "expert knowledge". Users hiding behind anonymous pseudonyms casting aspersions on the integrity of highly respected, well-known scientists, who have no other motive than to set the record straight regarding scientific content. The same users reorganizing the material in arbitrary tendentious ways, to suit their tastes, deleting legitimate contributions, hiding them in boxes, transferring them to other pages, and reordering so as to lose all logic or sense in the sequence of contributions and edits; in short, creating an anarchic circus, all within view of these "Administrators", who do nothing to intervene. Is this science fiction, fantasy, an "other-world" nightmare or reality.? What is Wikipedia all about? The tyranny of the ignorant? I am very curious what all the threatening remarks, gratuitous insults and assaults by the uneducated upon the integrity of the knowledgeable leads up to. Is this a serious process, or one in which a small number of Wikipedia "insiders" act out fantasies of power and importance, while those who, in the real world, are highly qualified scientists and professionals devoted to advancing our actual state knowledge, are silenced by threats, intimidation, and manipulative tactics, while administrators who believe that "expertise" is irrelevant, do nothing to intervene? Is it that only Wikipedia experience and status has any importance in this environment? I have a feeling the outcome of this debate will have more significance for Wikipedia than merely whether this poor article is kept or deleted. If the questionably empowered class of "Administrators" turns out to be the only real decision makers, wielding the power to overrule all others, then all depends on them. If they choose to ignore the advice of those who are best placed to provide expert opinion on the substance of the article in question, and decide simply according to their own notions, even though they have no knowledge, but prefer to heed the "all-inclusive" principle, or the views of other users who are equally ignorant of the subject, the outcome is meaningless, and the implication for the reliability of Wikipedia as a source of knowledge is clear. Having said this, I expect to receive a barrage of attacks, threats, intimidating remarks, citations for violations of rules, aspersions cast on my character, integrity, competence, etc. from those seasoned "insiders" who feel insulted or threatened by these self-evident remarks. But are there also those who believe in the value of Wikipedia and hold another view? Are there enough of those who do have an adequate respect for knowledge, qualifications, real-word competence and, simply, the truth, who have a say in how Wikipedia is run and decisions are made to tilt the balance? I am curious to see who actually holds sway in this strange setting, that claims to represent "the masses" and knowledge simultaneously. R_Physicist (talk) 08:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Now, admittedly, this was still a pretty angry statement, but to make clear what had provoked this degree of anger, let me fill in the immediately preceding remarks by our above friend User: Cheeser1. A very pertinent exchange took place between the author of the article under consideration for deletion and a physicist with considerable expertise in the field, who had identified himself under the user name "Proscience", and provided information on his user page that he was a researcher at a major U.S. Laboratory. It was carefully pointed out by him why the equations that formed the basis of the article did not merit the recognition that had been given by the author of the article. These two discussants, who were addressing the core of the issue, were then subjected to the following insulting sequence of remarks by User: Cheeser1, made more sinister by the interposed remark of "administrator" Scarian^{Call me Pat}. These attacks were enough to make User: Proscience decide to withdraw completely from the debate. Shortly thereafter, he closed his "user" account.

"This is a fairly rude response that doesn't even have much to do with the matter at hand. This is a deletion discussion. Please confine your contributions here (which are, indeed, your only contributions) to the matter at hand. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Note to closing admin - User:Proscience is a new account. Possibly suspicious. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 21:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

This and others duly noted on talk page. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC) "

Then, after a further brief scientific exchange between the same pair of discussants (who at least knew the subject they were talking about), there came the following:

"Stop it now. Both of you. You've made your points in this AfD. Cut the side-commentary/bickering. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)"

I don't know what standards of courtesy and civility are required in the "Wikipedia rulebook" for good behaviour. But by the standards of civility in normal society, the above would be regarded as plentiful reason for outrage. Who is speaking here, in this rude and arrogant and peremptory way, referring to the remarks of an accomplished researcher in physics as "your only contributions", ordering the author of the article under discussion and this highly qualified expert to cease their discussion, while hiding behind this absurd masque of anonymity?

It is no use rehearsing the other insults and abuses that had been thus far, and were subsequently, hurled against the Nominator and others who shared his views within this debate, and a waste of time to do so, since those so inclined are unlikely to change their ways. (It is certainly not all evident from the much manipulated, and partly repaired record of the debate that is now available for viewing; but no-one would like to reconstruct the unseemly details from the fragments.) It should be mentioned however that, prior to this, and subsequent to the introductory rationale for deletion, the above exchange had been the ONLY detailed discussion of the topic at hand that had yet occurred between two people who knew what the issue was actually about. The rest mainly consisted of: 1) accusations of "bad faith" against the Nominator (myself) by "administrator" User: Jerry - purely on the grounds that he didn't agree with the rationale for making the deletion nomination, followed by a remark that he was the administrator who had closed a previous AfD about this article (presumably, so we could all fully appreciate his importance); 2) A detailed listing of the edit history and origins of the article, in reply to a request by administrator User: Michael Hardy for evidence of COI; 3) A gratuitous "in principal" attack on the very idea that "expert opinion" was of any use to Wikipedia, again by administrator User: Jerry (in which I took no part, but learned a great deal). Notable quote:

"Experts should go off somewhere and be experts, and common, normal, ordinary, non-special, everyday, average wikipedians should build wikipedia."

and 4) a "head count" of those in favor of "delete" or "keep", with opinions registered mainly by those who openly admitted to not having read the article, or being able to comprehend its contents.

User:Cheeser1 spent most of the remainder of the debate alternately erasing, hiding, altering and displacing my contributions, as well as those of User: Proscience while simultaneously trying to undermine the legitimacy of votes for delete by unsubstantiated accusations of "sockpuppetry", Russian conspiracies, etc. in an effort to throw into question all remarks by people who were actually qualified to comment on the scientific merits of the case. He finally had the "satisfaction" of discovering that, in fact, two of these experts, both highly trained physicists with pertinent knowledge of the subject, "Proscience" and User: Antignom were in fact husband and wife, and hence necessarily held the same opinions on scientific matters, and could be dismissed as forming a dishonest conspiracy.

The icing on the cake was the closing administrator's discussion, in which User:Cheeser1 was included, without the Nominator ever being informed. User:Sambc concluded that User:Cheeser1's action's which included: removing, collapsing, displacing and re-ordering both the Nominator's and other participants input at least eight times, while hurling countless insulting epithets at the Nominator and at other well-qualified participants, were "perfectly reasonably", while the Nominator, in labelling this conduct "vandalism" and restoring these and other unauthorized deletions and machinations to their original locations was "behaving unreasonably". User:Sambc also opined that the Nominator was guilty of having made a "very uncivil and inappropriate original submission to AfD". Administrator User:Hersfold (mis)counted the 12 votes for delete as 10, and dismissed 5 of these purely on the grounds of User: Cheeser1's verifiably false accusations, and also miscounted the 11 keep votes as 9, while ruling them all valid. Two of the most strongly tendentious participants in the debate User:Cheeser1 and User:benjiboi (neither one an administrator) were included in the closing debate as though they had been there as neutral commentators. All present decided that the debate had been derailed, apparently accepting User: Cheeser1, User:benjiboi and User:Sambc's assertion that this was largely due to the Nominator's disruptive conduct, and agreed that it be closed as "Trainwreck/inconclusive"". The closing administrator User: TravisTX concurred, and cut it off with the author's appeal to the Almighty to intervene on her behalf, without giving the Nominator a chance to give the summary that had been promised since the first day of the discussion.

Two weeks after the drama had a chance to subside, I thought: "Perhaps this was just a statistical aberration. After all, only about thirty "users" (including some ten "administrators") plus three or four "outsiders" had taken part. Maybe I should make a final posting at the "Administrator's Notice Board / Incidents" to call other Wikipedia "regulars'" attention to what had occurred, and see the reaction." Within 29 mins. of doing so, I was blocked by administrators User:Seicer and User: Jehochman from further expression at Wikipedia, and treated to a couple of gratuitous taunting remarks in parting. 24.202.238.172 (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC) (alias "R Physicist")

Etc.

It's amazing how R Physicist can accuse me of taking his stand-alone rants out of context, but snipping things out of conversations/exchanges is perfectly fine. I called Proscience rude when he threw WP:SKILL out the window. Taking a cheap-shot at someone for speaking English well, but apparently not well enough (in an already tendentious AfD) is not appropriate. I told Proscience and Ngn to stop bickering when it got to the point that Proscience was threatening to expose "this situation" (the AfD) to "the media" - a threat to "expose" Ngn (IRL) as some sort of bad scientist. That's not appropriate either. I won't comment on the rest of RP's above, except to say that the SSP case was right and my suspicions were confirmed, and only then did the two come forward and mention that they're married (SPAs in an AfD who are married? classic meatpuppetry) and in addition to the SPA status, they both seemed to expect that their opinions be counted twice and with special weight because they are "experts." --Everyone's favorite scapegoat, Cheeser1 (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a shame that you've run into some of the odder -harder to use- bits of wikipedia so quickly. Although people bold comments an Article for Deletion discussions they are not voting. The tally of votes shouldn't really sway the closing admineditor's mind - just the numbers of people making reference to WP policy. Dan Beale-Cocks 14:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, I'm not an admin, never claimed to be one... and I recall that I was pretty even-handed in my appeal to this noticeboard in not singling anyone out (or rather, singling out several and not saying anyone was to blame). SamBC(talk) 14:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

One thing I will say now, with hindsight and looking back on things with calm consideration, is that the nominator seemed unsatisfied with the idea that the article be considered in terms of wikipedia's established criteria (such as notability and verifiability), but the criteria that the nominator felt we ought to be using. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with such a suggested change in criteria; there may or may not be, I've not considered them deeply. It's just if we've got our ways of determining what merits an article, we shouldn't bait-and-switch just because an expert says so. SamBC(talk) 14:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

One may be an expert in one's field, but not an expert in collaborative, volunteer development of an open encyclopedia using wiki software. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Incivility by MONGO

The situation has been resolved as far as the scope of this board goes. While it is regrettable that MONGO has left Wikipedia, and while we do hold out hope that he may return, it is now unproductive to all parties involved and uninvolved to further post here. If you have further concerns, please utilize other appropriate avenues other than this board. —Kurykh 18:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

As an uninvolved admin, I issued a warning to MONGO to remain civil in accordance with a recent ArbCom ruling. His reaction: [96] I consider that uncivil, so have blocked him for a week. Reviews are welcome. --Tango (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Gut reaction is that one week is a little long...although I'm not entirely sure what "deadminning" entails. _GB^T/C 13:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, that seems way OTT. Eusebeus (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You should have let an uninvolved admin do it. Blocking someone because it pissed you off that they said "Get lost" is over the top. A week is very excessive. please unblock immediately. --DHeyward (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that is was in response to a warning to remain civil makes it rather more serious than "get lost" would usually be. I considered topic bans, but considered them inappropriate considering the offence was regarding a procedural matter, not a specific article. If MONGO didn't have such a long history of this kind of behaviour, I would have considered a shorter block, but he's been doing this for years and shows no signs of learning appropriate behaviour. Long blocks seem the only option. --Tango (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(EC) You might want to dismount from your tall horse. Adminship does not mean that editors have to bow and scrape when you issue a warning. Editors may evidence a bit of frustration when warned. It is a good idea to give them time to de-escalate the situation. This matter was previously referred to WP:AE. You should keep the discussion there, and abide the resulting consensus. Cheers. Jehochman ^Talk 13:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom ruling does not require a concensus in advance. If there is a consensus to unblock, I will, of course, respect it. --Tango (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct, but once a discussion is started in one place, it makes sense to let it run its course. A lot of unnecessary drama could have been avoided by letting that WP:AE thread resolve. In any case, we see a consensus here for a 5 minute - 48 hour block, not a week. Jehochman ^Talk 14:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I could have requested this review there, yes, but I thought more people would see it here. AE is a place to get the attention of an admin. That much was already done. AN/I is the standard place for asking for other admins to review a block. At the end of the day, does it really matter where we discuss this? --Tango (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

One week is just a bit over the top. If you think someone is being uncivil the logical thing to do is to use the discretionary sanctions to put them on civility supervision. Then start blocking. Moreschi2 (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there really a difference between civility supervision and issuing a warning, which was the first thing I did? --Tango (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like he was blocked for "backtalking". That edit summary wasn't particularly incivil, and people are only supposed to be blocked under that ArbCom ruling for "repeated" and "serious" violations. Should not have been blocked. Kelly ^hi! 13:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's "repeated *or* serious". While this instance wasn't particular serious, the fact that it was in response to a civility warning makes it quite obvious it was repeated. --Tango (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

A week is far too long, but MONGO is fully aware that his intemperate language has been the subject of official disapproval in the past. Since Tango's notice was properly given MONGO had no excuse for the language of his edit summary. I suggest that the block is lifted asap, as time served for incivility, but not revoked. I will unblock providing there is no opposition in the next quarter of an hour. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I won't oppose reducing the length of the block, but "time served" is about 5 minutes. I suggest a minimum of 24 hours. --Tango (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As you are opposing I shall not unblock. 24 hours is a standard vandalism tariff - and whatever else people may think is wrong with some of MONGO's contributions he is not a vandal. I would suggest a still shorter block. I really think that an hour is sufficient to demonstrate that the community is serious about civility. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually laughed out loud when I read that. Then I realised you were serious. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, an hour seems too little to me, especially if the user is offline anyway. I would go with 24-48 hours. Black Kite 14:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I am serious. 24-31 hours is what a vandal gets after a series of warnings, where there is no recent blocks for same. What we have here is a uncivil edit summary, given while performing an act which is permitted by WP rules. The block is sufficient evidence of the communities disapproval of that policy infraction, and making it "long" will not make it more so. I would also comment that this may yet turn into a wheelwar when one of MONGO's button wielding friends decides to act WP:BOLDly - per the "lack of consensus" here - and unilaterally lifts the block. I am serious when I suggest that this block be of hours rather than days - further infractions may get a longer tariff. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Very many editors get instant, permanent, blocks after maybe one or two (vandal) edits. You people need to reed the username block logs sometime. Dan Beale-Cocks 19:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism-only accounts are indeffed instantly, but the autoblock only lasts 24 hours. So after that period, they can make another account and continue vandalizing (or contribute positively, or whatever). --B (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

A short block was reasonable under the ArbCom ruling, but (a) a week was too long, and (b) an uninvolved admin should've done it. Black Kite 13:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom ruling clearly defines what it means to be involved. I don't qualify. --Tango (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I meant "uninvolved" in the traditional sense, not from the AC ruling. Black Kite 13:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering this users history of civility, and choice not to change, this is reasonable. Seriously folks, this is never ever going to stop unless we simply enforce a clear standard. Perhaps MONGO will decide to be civil, perhaps MONGO will not, time will tell. I for one hope he can work within the social bounds of this project one day. That being said, while I don't think a week is over the top, I also think 2 days would be reasonable. _(1 == 2)^Until 13:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Also folks, someone lobbing an insult at you does not make you "involved". Think about it, one could defend themselves from blocks just by insulting any admin that came by and thus making them involved... No, our blocking policy says not to be involved in content disputes, not just receiving a name calling from the person. _(1 == 2)^Until 13:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That at least is correct, yes. Moreschi2 (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly the way I see it and is why I didn't bother getting someone else to do the block for me. --Tango (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• What kind of crazy talk is this? Blocking MONGO for a week for a grumpy comment on his talk page? Somebody has lost sight of the goal here. No, the ArbCom decision was not to block people for a week due to edit summaries on their talk page. Not even close. We seem to have taken leave of our collective senses, and be valuing false politeness above commitment to the project and its core aims. There is a massive and long-standing problem with POV-pushing, and blocking the people who reisst it due to comments somewhere else entirely is really not a great way to fix that. This is an entirely disproportionate response to an entirely predictable reaction to a cack-handed attempt to tone things down. No ill-intent assumed, but the tone and wording of the post to MONGO's talk more or less guaranteed his response, and it was gratuitous since MONGO was clearly following the ANI discussion anyway. Guy (Help!) 14:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No, blocking MONGO for a week for being uncivil in response to a civility warning. If there's ever a time when you should be civil it's when someone's just warned you to be. There is a massive and long-standing problem with MONGO being uncivil and it's time something was done about it. --Tango (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This section is a good illustration of how I think Wikipedia has somehow turned into a recess monitor and not an encyclopedia-building project. Tan | 39 14:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Tango, if you'd posted the text of that "warning" to me I could have predicted with near 100% certainty what the result would have been. I cannot believe you were so naive as to think that a post that condescending would be received with anything like equanimity. Guy (Help!) 14:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Condescending? It was overly formal, perhaps, but I don't think it was condescending. --Tango (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" So, how about we de-escalate this situation. If the goal was to prevent disruption, this block has failed miserably. Will somebody please undo it, per consensus, and then we can let the WP:AE thread come to an appropriate conclusion. Jehochman ^Talk 14:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that. As a technique for either de-escalating the situation or helping to ensure policy is followed on those articles, this was, to put it charitably, not a resounding success. Guy (Help!) 14:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The block was intended to prevent MONGO being uncivil. It will certainly succeed while the block is in place, and hopefully it will continue to succeed afterwards. There is no way to tell that at this early point. There is no consensus to unblock. There may be a consensus to reduce the length of the block to 24 hours. If I determine that there is, I will do so at some point in the next 23 hours. --Tango (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain how the block prevents MONGO from using edit summaries to kick back against patronising messages left on his talk page? That was what you blocked him for, and I don't see any evidence that the remedy will address the supposed problem. Honestly, I don't. Was MONGO uncivil in the talk page or project space debates where you asserted he was causing a problem? As far as I can see, he was not, after that posting, not least because it seems the debate was archived before the block. Guy (Help!) 14:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Look at it this way, Guy. He removed a politely-worded request for discussion from someone whom he was in a dispute with, with an edit summary of precisely the type that we know can cause an end to polite wording, and thus discussion. When this was pointed out to him, with some formality/po-facedness, perhaps, but nonetheless with propriety, he expressed his contempt for and fearlessness of the changed circs. that ArbCom has put him and all other participants in those pages in with a "get lost". Simply put, this is enforcement of arbitration of the most basic kind. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so it reduces his ability to be uncivil. Of course, he can still be uncivil on his talk page (although, if he is, I'll protect it). --Tango (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I support Tango on this one. There is a massive and long-standing problem with this sort of incivility on the project. I am disappointed as I had seen improvements since his unsuccessful RfA. Maybe this will now underline the seriousness of the policy to MONGO, who has led a charmed life thanks to the well-meaning support of his many fans up until now. Civility isn't optional, and if you have a history of incivility then delete a warning with an uncivil comment, well, you should not expect still to be editing. A week is on the long side; 48 or 72 hours seems fairer.--John (talk) 14:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless Tango agrees, we cannot undo the block; what we are discussing is what tariff is appropriate to minimise disruption. The block needs to be long enough to register the communities disapproval, yet not so long as to bring out the "anti-MONGO = pro-TROLL" faction. In my experience, any action relating to MONGO is a exercise of another round of WP infighting. To minimise disruption we need consensus on a tariff that will not enrage either side of the debate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The admin community can overrule an individual admin if there is a clear consensus to do so. It's only wheel warring if that consensus doesn't exist (which, in this case, it doesn't). If there is a tarrif that balances both those goals, that's certainly what we should aim for. I'm not sure if such a tarrif does exist. There does seem to be a consensus developing that a 24 hour block would be more appropriate, so unless something changes I will probably reduce the block. As long as I do that before the initial 24 hours is up, it doesn't make any difference exactly when I do it, so I'll allow more discussion before acting. --Tango (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that to be an appropriate tariff, in this instance, for a first block.LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness, this is over the top. I cannot see what justifies the description "trolling". A week's block is clearly excessive: reduce it to 31 hours, says I, and slap a civility supervision on top. Nobody likes The Truthers, sure. But we will never make progress on these articles if the various contributors on either side treat each other with disdain. Nor is Mr Basboll quite that bad. Moreschi2 (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious why Tango gets to decide when "it's time" to do "something" about MONGO. I'm not an admin, but that sounds dangerously like a retaliatory use of administrative tools. I was under the impression that blocks were not intended to be punitive, but here we have an example of a block implemented eight hours after the subject last edited, hence no imminent threat to the pedia, and no threat whatsoever to pagespace. I'm wondering what part of the Arbcom ruling gives one administrator the ability to retaliate against the removal of a warning on a user talk page because of the "uncivil" edit summary of that user. BusterD (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I get to decide because I'm and admin and the ArbCom ruling says admins can use their discretion in enforcing the ruling. This block is intended to prevent further incivility. I don't know if it will work, but I'm hopeful. The fact that it's 8 hours after he last edited is irrelevant, since the block is for longer than 8 hours. --Tango (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to be sarcastic, but "I'm and admin" sounds like the kind of quote trolls will spit back, and I'm certain admin's discretion is not your strongest argument. I'll commend you for posting this thread immediately thereafter, because your block was bound to provoke a reaction. I contend this block has the appearance of being based not on behaviors user has exhibited recently, but instead a reduced tolerance for behaviors exhibited in the distant past, for which user was duly notified at the time. BusterD (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Folks, does it really help the project to stop MONGO from editing for an entire week? I think the block is excessive. Recognizing that we all are capable of getting angry at other editors and saying things we later regret, is it truly the right approach to use the block button to try to let people know you believe they are out of line with something they said? You know, it actually takes more courage to try to talk to someone about their behavior than to swat them with a block. Soft words turneth away wrath, and blocks just make people angrier. Thanks for listening, Antandrus (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not right. I think we're all aware that MONGO has been talked to till the most polite individuals on this project are blue in the face. About whether it helps the project: I don't know if a week does. What would help the project is a more careful attention to the definition of the word "troll". If MONGO learns nothing else over the course of this block, however long it eventually is, than the etymology, correct use, and consequences of abuse of that word, I think that the project will definitely benefit. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Totally ridiculous length of time, block was totally unnecessary, if people are so precious that they can't cope with being told to "get lost" and react in such an OTT way, then perhaps they should not be admins at all. Giano (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

People have talked to MONGO about his behaviour before. It doesn't work. --Tango (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• You are not God, you merely wield a mop and bucket. Adminship is no big deal. You do not have to be spoken to in hushed and reverential tones. Giano (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No, but it is important that MONGO does not address his fellow contributors on 9/11 articles in disdainful tones. If he then reacts uncivilly to a request for civility, then brief block is valid. Moreschi2 (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, if one is allowed to be uncivil they can create a hostile environment in a content dispute and thus gain an unfair advantage by driving off those who don't want to be subject to such comments. This damages NPOV in favor of the point of view of the uncivil. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

However, like everyone else, I do have to be spoken to civilly. While "get lost" would be usually be uncivil enough for a block, the fact that it was immeadiately after a civility warning reduces my tolerance. --Tango (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"Your tolerance" is your problem - it should not influence your behaviour. You should unblock immediatly. Giano (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If I don't allow my tolerance to influence my behaviour, that would mean I would block people for the slightest offence. Your demand that I unblock him does not follow from that - in fact, what follows is that I should indef block him. --Tango (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoa there, this is dangerous territory you're entering. You're now saying you blocked him not because of disruption of debates on content relating to 9/11, but because he was rude to you. That is a truly terrible idea. Guy (Help!) 15:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I never claimed anything else. I always said it was a block for incivility, I never mentioned disruption. --Tango (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

He said no such thing, he pointed out that when someone violates a policy immediately after they just got warned about then that is a factor to consider when blocking. Please, if you must misrepresent the position of your opponent in a disagreement then perhaps you need to rethink your position. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not just tolerate incivil behavior? The moment someone launches a personal attack, we can choose to ignore it. We can just interpret it as an emotional outburst. Some people will get emotional faster than others, and some people will let emotions affect their behavior. By choosing to ignore it we have already completely neutralized it. But by trying to change a person's behavior we create a new problem. It would take counseling, perhaps some drugs to really change the behavior of someone. A week's ban won't do it, it will just make the editor more angry. The only rational reason for banning people is if not banning them would cause real harm to wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Because uncivil behaviour can drive people from the project - that causes real harm to Wikipedia. If everyone were able to just ignore uncivil behaviour, it would be fine, but that's not the case. --Tango (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems the comment was only directed at - and only likely to have been seen by - you, but I don't think you're in danger of being "driven from the project" over it. Indeed, your edit count has swelled considerably as a result :) deep breath and hit random page next time. You'll be wrapped up in an article about a 7th century Chinese mathematician in no time. Deiz talk 15:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That is a very good point, but please see my remarks to Guy above (timestamp:15:09) for an indication why they might not really apply in this case. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If he were only even uncivil to me, that would be true. However, he has been uncivil to many people. My block was not to prevent incivility towards me, but to prevent incivility in general. --Tango (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Like I just said, "if one is allowed to be uncivil they can create a hostile environment in a content dispute and thus gain an unfair advantage by driving off those who don't want to be subject to such comments. This damages NPOV in favor of the point of view of the uncivil." That is just one of the reasons we don't tolerate uncivil behavior, another reason is it is mean, unpleasant, and makes for a bad Wikipedia experience. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Tango, 1 == 2, People who behave in an uncivil way are a small minority. If most others do not behave in this way, then I don't see how this will lead someone to leave wikipedia. I do understand that action needs to be taken against someone who repeatedly harasses a particular person. Count Iblis (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have unblocked as that's where the conversation was leading. It seems the block was questionable and manifestly excessive, but the consensus was actually to unblock per time served rather than to cancel the original block (some said 24-31 hours, but I think the message has been well and truly got). This was a reading of the consensus here so is naturally open to review. Orderinchaos 15:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, but that was not where the conversation was heading by any means.

How has the message been got? On what basis do you say that? --Relata refero (disp.) 15:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I see a consensus to reduce to 24 hours or 2 days. I see no consensus about "time served", and stating that there is agreement that the comment leading to the block was "provoked" is just untrue, there is no such agreement. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no such consensus. Please reinstate my block immeadiately - you are wheel warring. --Tango (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus at all for one week - pretty much everyone agreed that was excessive. Giving voice to a community decision is not wheel warring, although I do accept that there was a considerably wide view from the community and the reduction of the block to the present certainly reduces drama - the alternative would have been to reblock him for the rest of the 24-31 hours (which creates more block log entries for seemingly little gain), which others are free to do if they feel it necessary. Orderinchaos 15:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Once an admin has made a decision, there has to be a consensus to undo it, not a consensus to keep it. --Tango (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

To rephrase what Tango said, you seemed to have made a mistake judging consensus, to avoid the effect of wheel warring you should reverse your action now that this has been pointed out. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... what he said. --Tango (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any such consensus there. It would be best to re-instate the block to at least 24 hours to allow this conversation to continue. Black Kite 15:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

OK - 29 hours, which takes it to the 31 that seemed to be closest to what most people regarded as correct. Orderinchaos 15:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It would have been nice if you respected me enough to allow me to determine the consensus and reduce the block, especially since I'd already said I intended to do so. I will not contest your new block. --Tango (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking was the correct decision. Than goodness for common sense. Giano (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, the point was that no sort of consensus had been reached at all. Without that, any admin action is on shaky ground. Black Kite 15:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

He's been reblocked for 29 hours, to give a total block time of 31 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

-

It would also be helpful if Tango could state that he will modify his approach to similar blocks. This episode has not reflected well on Wikipedia's admin corps. Only block for a personal slight if the editor's behavior is unquestionably egregious, and even then it's better to get an outside admin to judge. And in this case it would also have been better to follow the AE process. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, incivility is blockable for either egregious or repeated violations, not just egregious. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC

I stand by my actions entirely, for the reasons stated above. --Tango (talk)

Following the suggestion of some people here, I have placed MONGO under indefinite Civility Restriction. Hopefully that will be sufficient to control him. --Tango (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't have that authority. You should completely withdraw from any of this discussion, seeing as how your block was wholly uncalled for, and your defense of it has been nothing less than totally childish, culminating in a basic "I blocked him because he was mean to me." His incivility was basic at best, and certainly not worthy of a week-long block. Or 31 hours, for that matter. --Golbez (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, given your previous involvement in this, I think that decision should be left to neutral third parties. Orderinchaos 15:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

What involvement? Warning the user to follow policy? Blocking the user for violating policy again? Does that really make him involved? Is there some content dispute these two users are involved in that I am not aware of? Has the admin policy expanded what constitutes being an "involved admin" beyond content disputes? Well I think I am uninvolved, and I agree with Tango's idea(or does my participation in this debate involve me?). _(1 == 2)^Until 15:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Good to see the MONGO Defense League is still in good fighting condition. Nothing says balanced admin actions like letting MONGO go skipping down the lane every time he insults the rest of the editors, while giving any and all other editors a few days in the public stocks. This continues to be one of the biggest regularly demonstrated injustices in the project, and every time an admin argues that 'it's MONGO, so it's different' as has been done her, I lose respect for that admin. In this case, I especially find Orderinchaos especially worthy of calling out on this, because he not only flexed the 'But it's MONGO' defense, he also wheel-warred, deciding that his vote was Consensus by Admin Fiat, which is a misuse of power growing steadily among admins. ThuranX (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you just clarify for me how that comment actually helps the situation? Guy (Help!) 16:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There's some value in speaking truth to power. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That's prettyt much it. Sorry, Guy, but that's how I see every single thread about MONGO. His incivility is infamous, and the admin response that it's always the conspiracy of trolls is just as famous. He gets trolled. But he bites, and barks, and foams at the mouth regularly. Instead of EVERY stepping back, he steps up, ratchets it up, and plays rules lawyer with letter of the law to get others toasted, but plays the 'spirit of the law' to get off the hook. I'm not anti-MONGO, just anti-MONGO's incivility and excuses. No Admin's ever shyed from slapping me with blocks; I've been blocked by editors who are involved in the existing disputes, and the blocks upheld by their buddies, so don't say there's no cabalism among admins. MONGO's like the martyred saint of admins to some of you, and that attitude towards him is big bullshit. it's got to stop. He got blocked for what others would be blocked for too, so drop it to 48 hours and let him stew in it. It's a long overdue block. ThuranX (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

MONGO has no power. Hasn't had for ages. He is, however, just about the only person who is consistently prepared to resist egregious POV-pushing on the 9/11 articles. The thing for which he was blocked was not even uncivil, "get lost" in response to a patronising message on your talk page is well within the bounds of normal human interaction. What he was blocked for appears, on the face of it, to be refusal to kowtow. Guy (Help!) 20:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I tell you what, although I agree that he should have been punished one way or another for what he did (although I think a whole week is on the harsh side), I am not looking forward to his reaction when he is unblocked. If he is that uncivil before being blocked, well...let's hope he just takes the chin-up approach... Lradrama 15:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As discussed above, am not an involved admin. My only action has been in enforcing the ArbCom ruling. The ruling explicitly states that such enforcement does not constitute an involvement. --Tango (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The ironic thing is that I am probably better known as a mild opponent of MONGO's, and this is the first time I've seen cause to agree with him on something. It certainly wasn't, as you describe, "letting him skip down the lane" - I was acting in accordance with other admins above who had expressed the view that for these purposes the length of the block didn't matter, and my own view that drama feeds on itself. Clearly it did matter to some, however, so I reset it to a level which I believed most participants would find reasonable. For the record I have opposed and/or undone blocks on other editors in the past when there's been a whiff of something Not Right about the whole thing, regardless of my personal opinion of the editors concerned. I should note I did read the debate carefully, and I paid attention to a wide variety of views (you'll see several which basically recommended the action I initially took), and simply misjudged - there's certainly no fiat here, as I put my own decision up for review and when some indicated they felt I had overstepped, I adopted the strictest reading of what was there. Orderinchaos 15:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You made an error in judgement and corrected it. I'm happy to leave it at that. I withdraw my accusation of wheel warring - I overreacted. --Tango (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I believe your action to be sincere, and your response to the objection to be perfectly suitable. Nothing wrong with your admin actions today Order, nor do I think Tango was wrong because it was decided a lesser block time was more appropriate. Good work folks. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Double Standard is alive and well... depending on which side of the Clique you're on, any block or ban you may get is either roundly condemned and reversed, or approved by an amen chorus. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It is true that certain users are more likely to be defended than others when all else is the same. This is something we need to fix. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely if this is based on user contribs that is fair enough and doesn't need fixing or even changing at all. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It's based more on who your friends and enemies are, as well as your stands on various controversial issues (both intra-Wikipedia and real-world). *Dan T.* (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

He was incivil to your comment on his talk page. Editors can delete comments on their talk page. Deleting comments on talk pages had absolutely NOTHING to do with the arbcom ruling. Justifying your anger under the color of arbcom is a serisou abuse of admin privileges. --DHeyward (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

All true, but I didn't block him for removing the warning, I blocked him for being uncivil. --Tango (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, please folks please be sure you are aware of the events that actually occurred before presenting arguments, and do so accurately. There has been more than a little misrepresentation of other's positions going on here. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Was the ArbCom ruling intended to cover user talk pages? This seems kind of a broad interpretation. Kelly ^hi! 16:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there an exception for user talk pages? _(1 == 2)^Until 16:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

He told you to get lost and that you should be deadminned. That's an opinion but hardly incivil. --DHeyward (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Try saying "get lost" to someone, and watch their face when you do it. Try it at work, or school, or some social group or club, and see what the reaction is to the person you say it to. Now imagine you have been talking like that to those people for months now. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that this was on Mongo's own talk page. It's akin to someone criticizing you in your own office at work; telling them to get lost may not be polite, but it is understandable and justifiable. (I use an office as an example rather than as one's home to head off the argument that user talk pages are not owned; one normally does not own an office either, but there is an equivalent sense of space.) Horologium (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If an admin gives a civility warning and the response is "get lost," I'd think you either block them or give up the civility policy. Hectoring Tango for this is over the top. Mackan79 (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Incivil is "frack you" or "go away, motherfracker", not what MONGO wrote. Kelly ^hi! 16:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The policy says "personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of conflict and stress." That could be taken too far, but I don't believe it's just a bad words policy. Mackan79 (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Then any disagreement can be characterized as "incivil", if the person disagreed with is sufficiently oversensitive and neurotic, and feels "stressed" by the disagreement. Kelly ^hi! 16:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"Get lost" is barely uncivil, especially on your own talk page, and "if you support conspiracy theorist misusing this website, then you should be deadminned" is something I'd wholeheartedly endorse. Luckily I don't see any evidence that Tango does support such abuse, but any admin who did would, in my view, be entirely unfit. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the blocking admin should have posted a request here or at WP:WQA rather than blocking themselves. Totally subjective judgment. Kelly ^hi! 16:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"Get lost" to a civility warning? I'm kind of wondering what JzG would do if he issues a warning and someone tells him to get lost. Mackan79 (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It rather depends. I have moderated my temper quite a lot of late, and I tend to simply unwatch user pages where people engage in egregious demonstrations of pique. I also take much longer and write more words to explain what the problem is, what needs to change, and what sort of things might lead to an unblock (see User talk:Piercetheorganist. And if I blocked someone just because they told me to get lost on their talk page after one of my pompous notes, I'd fully expect to be slapped with a trout since one's user talk page, while one does not own it, is a place where one should be reasonably free to be oneself - I think "wide latitude" is the usual phrase. It is increasingly clear to me that a key purpose of administrative interaction with long-term troublesome users is to help them decide whether they want to continue editing Wikipedia or not, not to drive them away, which was the most likely outcome here. It is hard to think how this could have been handled worse. But you are right in one sense: I am not immune from getting so up myself that I would hit back with the block button against rudeness. I think I have that under control, but maybe I don't. Guy (Help!) 20:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Incivility by MONGO-Arbitary break

MONGO is blocked, and there seems to be consensus of the tariff now applied. As regards incivility - nearly all such violations takes place on talk pages - article, wikipedia and user. Can we let this thing now pass and move on? LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Tariff? tariff? Good God, man, you think this is a court of law or something? It's a bloody website, and MONGO is someone we actually need to keep onside, not drive away. Guy (Help!) 16:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, absolutely! Kelly ^hi! 16:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Wassamatta, too many letters? Or are you simply unfamiliar with the appropriate use of English (other than the vernacular)? Law Courts, etc, are required to use the correct terms, but it doesn't mean they are disallowed within other areas of life. I don't appreciate being told how to talk by some fellow Brit, of much the same age, who has a reputation as something of a bucketmouth as it is. Now, was there any policy point you wanted discussing? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we please not argue about semantics? Does it really matter what name people use for the length of a block? --Tango (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Tango should have recused himself from direct intervention and sought neutral input at one venue, not two. There was no pressing need to act; this wasn't an emergency. Strongly recommend Tango refrain from future intervention because this is generating needless drama. No opinion on the duration of the block, but IMO any uninvolved administrator can undo this block at any time. Durova^Charge! 16:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't only seek input an one venue - this one. There is clearly no consensus here for completely removing the block, so any administrator (involved or otherwise) removing it would be wheel warring. --Tango (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As an involved administrator, you were outside policy in applying the block in the first place. No consensus is necessary. Durova^Charge! 16:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Durova, please respond to this question before insisting Tango was "involved" somehow. Policy requires you not be in a content dispute, perhaps you should review it. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have already replied here. Multiple concurrent discussions are a bad idea, and it's obvious that Tango's decisions are causing more drama than necessary. We all have better things to do. Durova^Charge! 17:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Tango believe that a comment directed at him was incivil. Making that assessment means he is ivolved. It is the definition of conflict of interest for him to assess, in the heat of the moment, whether telling him to get lost and get deadminned is incivil and deserves a sanction. Since it was his first blcok for incivility, it reeks of an angry response as opposed to a reasoned well thought out sanction. --DHeyward (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I am quite capable of making impartial decisions, even when I'm the target of the offence. The ruling gives a clear definition of "involved", and being a target is not mentioned. Also, my block was not "in the heat of the moment" - I took considerable time making the decision (for example, I re-read the ArbCom ruling to make sure I was doing everything correctly). Blocking a long-time editor for a week is not something I do lightly. As for my record - I've looked through it, and I have made blocks for personal attacks before, which is much the same thing. I think the fact that I issued the warning before being targeted myself makes it clear that I was of the opinion that action needed to be taken before I become "involved". --Tango (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Look at the practical result: a lot of people's time wasted. This is a controversial block and it didn't need to be one. It shouldn't have been one. And since blocks are supposed to be preventative rather than punitive, wouldn't it have stood a better chance of having the desired effect on MONGO's conduct if someone whose impartiality was above question had intervened? Yes, it's difficult when established and productive editors have civility problems. That's part of why it's best for the response to be clear, unambiguous, and community-based. Durova^Charge! 18:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Incivility is bad because it could lead to editors leaving wikipedia? That's a bit far fetched as I explained above. Arguably, if we censor wikipedia and e.g. only allow pictures of women if they cover their hair we may attract a huge amount of Muslim editors here. I don't think we would want that. I've nothing against Muslims, even those who think that women should cover their hair. But editors should be expected to have a backbone and be able to tolerate things they don't like. Count Iblis (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a matter of priorities. Not making people leave Wikipedia takes priority over letting people say what they like. It doesn't take priority over maintaining the neutrality of the encyclopaedia. --Tango (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Tango, were you actually thinking about leaving Wikipedia because of MONGO's edit summary? Kelly ^hi! 16:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No, but as I've said above, the block wasn't intended to stop him being uncivil towards me, it was intended to stop him being uncivil in general. --Tango (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, if that's an offense worthy of blocking to protect Wikipedia, you need to get busy - there are thousands of other editors guilty of the same level of offense that need blocking then. But personally I think it was because MONGO offended your sense of your own authority. Kelly ^hi! 17:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

By disregarding my warning like that he made it perfectly clear he had no intention of changing his ways. He has a long history of such behaviour. A block was certainly called for. --Tango (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have examples of MONGO's previous incivility? A few DIFFS would help to establish his pattern of behavior, and lessen the argument that this was a personal matter. Redrocket (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone familiar with MONGO really dispute that his has a history of incivility? If you want more information, I suggest you start with the ArbCom case that desysopped him: [97]. --Tango (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That's the problem, most of the people commenting on this case (including me, and I suported the block) aren't familiar with MONGO or his history. They're taking this as a one-time incivil comment to an admin that resulted in a block. The ArbCom case and incivil diffs will help. Redrocket (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's ok if editors have varying notions about what incivility means to them. Meanwhile having a thick skin around here is in itself a kind of civility and wikilove. For myself only, I would have taken that edit summary as uncivil, angry, not thoughtful, not helpful and so on. However, it's so unlikely I'd have found myself in that editing context with Mongo, so thinking about how I would have taken it isn't the tale. A week was far too long but this has been shortened, though maybe not shortened enough but all the same, there's nothing untowards about keeping cool when one sees what one thinks is the mother of lame edits glowing and taunting back from the screen. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There's more of a double standard here, in that if you're on one side of the culture wars, you're expected to have a thick skin as stated above... but if you're on the other side, if you suggest that your opponents should have a thick skin instead of being hypersensitive, you're condemned for supporting trolling, harassment, stalking, and a litany of other evils. 17:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Am I misreading the log or was this Tango's first block for incivility? --DHeyward (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, really. Does it matter either way? --Tango (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't have a lot of experience dealing with incivility as a blockable offense. The fact that your first block was for a) a comment directed at you and b) for a week with no precedent for such a length of time is enough justification to overturn the block. This should have been handled by someone else, preferably with more experience with civility issues and not the subject of the conflict. --DHeyward (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I am uninformed about the larger context here, but it seems to me that this is a very troubling case. We should be permitted greater latitude on our talk pages and the language in question hardly represents that serious a breach of civility. A week-long block is such an inappropriate response that it raises serious concerns about Tango's impartiality and judgment here. Moreover, it is unfortunate that, rather than admitting a serious error in judgment and making apology given the general reaction here, Tango has instead resorted to wikilawyering about how arbcom defines "involvement." Eusebeus (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest you familiarise yourself with MONGO's history before commenting. It would allow the reader to place a greater weight on your opinion if he or she was certain you were in possession of the full facts and still felt that way.--Relata refero (disp.) 18:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else think this requires no more admin action? Can it be closed now? --Relata refero (disp.) 18:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Over the three years or so I've been here I have a certain familiarity with Mongo's history generally. I meant the specifics of this particular dispute. Eusebeus (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Unacceptable behavior

Every administrator who blocks a good-faith contributor for any reason whatsoever without a previously sought and clearly demonstrated consensus to do so should be desysoped. This is unacceptable behavior from any administrator, in every case. It violates the blocking policy. It generates wikidrama on a grand scale, every single time. It is never, ever, in any circumstance whatsoever, the best thing for Wikipedia.

Administrators, now hear this: you are not a lone ranger, appointed to protect Wikipedia from evildoers with your trusty block button, exerting your personal will over those who contribute constructively. Caviler blocking is for vandals, spammers, obvious trolls and cranks; if a good-faith editor needs blocking, it can damn sure wait a day or two for people to talk about it first.

Why is this behavior still tolerated by the community? ➪HiDrNick! 17:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, reading the blocking policy before making broad, useless statements like the above might actually help. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely enorse DrNick above. Tango has dsplayed incompetence and foolishnes on a dazzling scale. Giano (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well MONGO as an administrator actually made also blocks "without a previously sought and clearly demonstrated consensus", should he be desysoped too?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 10:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna go ahead and toss this out here because I may be reading your comment wrong, or you could just be really, really confused, are you saying MONGO is a sysop? MONGO has not been a sysop since December 2006.. — Κaiba 10:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, I thought he was still an administrator.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I was acting in accordance with an ArbCom ruling. If you disagree with that ruling, take it up with them. --Tango (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad did not block Mongo. Jpgordon did not block Mongo. You did. And then you cried "wheel warring" when someone had the sense to set it right. Don't put this off on someone else. Your blocks are your responsibility. ➪HiDrNick! 17:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course I take responsibility for my actions. My point is that ArbCom clearly ruled that a consensus was not required for taking action and that any admin could do so unilaterally. You opinion that I should have sought a consensus first therefore goes against that policy, so you should take it up with ArbCom. As for my accusation of wheel warring - I have withdrawn it. However, the unblocking was inappropriate, and plenty of people agreed with me on that - including the unblocking admin. --Tango (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You can try proposing a change to policy. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The above wording would be unworkable. How would AIV and 3RR boards work? Orderinchaos 03:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Where can I find this list of "good-faith" and "crank" contributors? It sounds useful. Actually (and this is in no way related to the above), it is a fact that WP:BLOCK doesn't distinguish between editors. It doesn't matter if you are a constructive constributor, you don't get a free pass on disruptive behaviour. In other words, it isn't as cut and dried as you make out. Black Kite 17:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

  It's up at the North pole, called the "naughty or nice" list. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

From some of the stuff we've seen diffs and complaints about MONGO about civility, this is some pretty tame stuff to block over compared to his past comments. The whole thing appears (in this case) to be blown out of proportion, but whats done is largely done for better or worse. Are we actually giving him a civility probation for saying "get lost" on his talk page? Lawrence § t/e 18:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it was also the comment about de-sysoping someone for their PoV. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence, please read my comment to Guy (15:02 timestamp) for a detailed explanation of why this might not be inappropriate in this case. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

So Lawrence, your argument against the block is 'he's done worse and gotten away with it, so why block for this lesser offense'? That's absurd on its' face. Parallel is that petty larceny charges shouldn't be brought against those previously acquitted of multiple counts of burglary and robbery, because 'at least they're stealing less'. Come off it. That anyone stood up to MONGO is cause for celebration, not desysopping. I cant' think of another editor who splits so much of the community when it comes to his civility issues. Anything that reins his in is a positive step for the project. ThuranX (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Er... I didn't really take much of any position, let alone toss out an argument either way, it was just an observation on the block for the get lost comment itself. The deadmin comment after certainly didn't help. We shouldn't celebrate anyone's blocking. We're not here to win points, and this isn't a game. Lawrence § t/e 23:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, now we're just explaining it to people. The incident is over. Unless someone has an objection in the next few minutes, I will archive this and we can get back to business. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Back to the same business that started this thread? I guess if you give a deadline of only a few minutes, I'll be the one objecting to archiving it, although I'm not an administrator and have nothing to say. Let people weigh in. Yes, the damage is done, but maybe something can be learned. There's nothing wrong with discussing it. Please don't archive. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

People are seeing this as too harsh, but mongo has accepted terms for his behaviour hasn't he, and now he has breached them. It's not the same as someone else telling someone to get lost, because there is a repeated pattern here and arbcom have made a ruling or something about how he should act. Merkin's mum 18:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Every administrator who blocks a good-faith contributor for any reason whatsoever without a previously sought and clearly demonstrated consensus to do so should be desysoped. - Absolutely agree.
Again, now we're just explaining it to people. The incident is over. Unless someone has an objection in the next few minutes, I will archive this and we can get back to business. - Do that and I will unarchive it. If you think you have you've made yourself heard, you get on with your "business".. you dont get to decide that for everyone. We dont archive important threads like this before even the community has been given a reasonable oppurtunity to see it, let alone comment. Sarvagnya

Sorry, do you have something to contribute or some admin action you want?

The moment that Sluzzelin asked nicely above I chose not to. Let that be a lesson to you on how to get things done with minimal drama, if you care. Relata refero (disp.) 19:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Every administrator who blocks a good-faith contributor for any reason whatsoever without a previously sought and clearly demonstrated consensus to do so should be desysoped. -- Grabs the popcorn because my lurking should get a lot more inreresting with all the desysops.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• We should have listened to people on the ArbCom decision workshop. It's patently clear that the ArbCom decision is going to be used to punish such egregious lapses of decorum as "get lost...if you support conspiracy theorist misusing this website, then you should be deadminned" and not actually do anything about the situation on the articles. This might have something to do with the fact that it's a heck of a lot easier to say "play nice" than to deal with a serious issue that affects the credibility of some of Wikipedia's most high-profile articles. --Haemo (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Its important to remember that there still is a community consensus that the kind of atmosphere engendered by many, many statements like that over a long period does in itself have a deleterious effect on articles. If you disagree with that theory, this isn't the place to argue it.
  • I do agree with you that it is a lot easier to play nice than deal with the issues. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Schnazzy! Everyone who patrols WP:AN3 will be desysopped immediately, I guess. --B (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, give me a break. The three-revert rule carries "previously sought and clearly demonstrated consensus", as it's the only automatic punitive blocking that we allow. The rules of what consitutes a revert are extremely clear and unambiguious, whereas the civility policy, while backed by clear concensus, is much muddier in the deatils; it does not hurt to seek concenus before carrying out a block. When a failure to display enough obsequiosity earns a week-long block, it's time for something to be done. ➪HiDrNick! 22:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm calling shenanigans on this block

I've done virtually the same thing-- telling someone to get lost on my user page whom I didn't want to post here. He also ran to WP:ANI, and his complaints were, suprise, suprise, ignored. This is totally a politically motivated block that is far too severe. Jtrainor (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• I find it deplorable that after all that has passed today Mongo is still blocked [98]. Is there not one of you Admins, with the guts and decency to unblock him. It's not as though he's going to edit and threaten any of you! Giano (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

So you're upset that an admin acted on his own and blocked the user without talking it over and gaining proper consensus, and you find it deplorable that another admin hasn't acted on his own and unblocked the user without talking it over and gaining proper consensus, either? Redrocket (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'd feel a little better about this if it hadn't been initiated by a couple editors who routinely oppose him in 9/11 related articles. There is of course plenty of incivility on that side of those debates and I expect blocks being performed in the context of the Arbcom case to be handed out a little more evenhandedly going forward. RxS (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely unnecessary block. "Get lost?" Serious? I think the blocking admin needs a thicker skin, as generally required by administrators and should unblock immediately for review. the_undertow ^talk 20:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Taken in isolation it may look harsh. But for a user who has been warned repeatedly about civility to respond to a civility warning by saying "get lost...if you support conspiracy theorist misusing this website, then you should be deadminned"; what else would any admin do but block in a situation like that? The initial block length was a bit harsh, but 31 hours seems fair to me. I am saddened that the apparent progress around the time of his RfA turns out to have been only apparent. Edits like this seem to indicate that no real progress has been made, no real learning has taken place. Sad, as is any block of an established and well-intentioned long term editor, but fair. --John (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

What would any admin do? I dunno, take it with a grain of salt, perhaps. I assume the block was for 'get lost,' which I don't consider incivility. You can't block the guy for asserting that an admin should be stripped of the toolz, so I'll assume the former was the case. I'm trying to see your point, and take your link into consideration, but since I think this action is more retaliatory than preventative, I'm still feeling uneasy about any block at this time. the_undertow ^talk 21:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean any editor who suggests an admin should be recalled is shopping for a block from the admin in question? I don't get it. Orderinchaos 03:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read this over and have come to the conclusion that Tango should be desysoped. But that is just my opinion and according to some editors my opinion is irrelevant because I am not an almighty administrator. And apparently that makes me a troll as well. I served a seven-month long block for a minor offense as a new editor and so I think I understand how blocking works around here. There are too many administrators with a block first mentality.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 21:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion is no more nor less relevant based on whether or not you are an administrator. Your relevance is affected far more by making hysterical comments like this one here, by carrying the joke of running for president entirely too far, or saying things like this nonsense above. None of this has anything to do with being an administrator. --B (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That's just a continuation of ad hominem attacks on me. Rather than calling my posts "nonsense" why don't you focus on the topic that is being discussed?--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 21:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Your own comment didn't focus on the topic being discussed. You had one semi-relevant sentence and the rest was irrelevant. As for "a continuation of ad hominem attacks" on you, I don't believe I have ever interacted with you before. I may have and it just didn't stand out. --B (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't referring directly to you. Read my post again, every sentence in it is relevant to this discussion. Especially the last sentence, which ties it all together.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 21:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read this over and have come to the conclusion that Tango may have made a block to long, but that a block was appropriate. But that is just my opinion and according to some editors my opinion is irrelevant because I am not an almighty administrator. And apparently that makes me a troll as well. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Er, pardon? Where has anyone said, or even implied that? Black Kite 22:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Look everyone. It's not as hard as all that. There are two points here. I think the point is firstly MONGO's response to a civility warning was "get lost". Clearly upping the ante. If civility warnings are to mean anything they should have available sanctions behind them. Every admin should back Tango because otherwise the whole system falls down and we can forget Wiki's civility rules and then the whole project falls down. It's as simple as that.
Secondly, MONGO made a content point in that "...if you support conspiracy theorist misusing this website, then you should be deadminned", in simpler words if you disagree with my POV then you shouldn't be an admin. So now choose. Either MONGO's POV is more important than the system or it isn't. Admins, the ball's in your court. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Every admin should think for themselves. I won't back the action, and the one thing that keeps the system from 'falling' is that not everyone agrees on every action, effectively preventing this from becoming an oligarchy. the_undertow ^talk 22:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Summary of my thoughts: MONGO's response to Tango's warning was inappropriate and warranted a block, but the original block was too long. It has been reduced to 31 hours. I think this thread is about done, and should be archived. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If only for the fact that the discussion will outlast the block duration. the_undertow ^talk 22:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

They usually do! Where would be the fun, otherwise? --Tango (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Was the person you told to get lost an uninvolved admin warning you about a civility probation breach? Were you, in fact, under civility probation? How is it "virtually the same thing" if either is untrue? --Random832 (contribs) 22:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

To clarify - MONGO was not under civility probation at the time (he is now). He was just under the same ArbCom ruling as everyone else involved in the September 11 articles. --Tango (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

<personal attacks snipped> 84.56.1.250 (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Tango and MONGO seem to have clashed before; for example, here's a November 2006 edit sumary from Tango that is arguably uncivil to MONGO, so it would be best if Tango refrain from taking any admin action that involves MONGO. Also, it was easy to predict that the tone of the warning was likely to trigger a "get lost," which I have to say isn't much of a reason to block someone. I'd like to see MONGO unblocked. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 01:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Why even bother? He already retired and requested an indef block for his account. Leave the man alone. --Haemo (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

November 2006? I would suggest that, given the length of time, there is the likelihood that Tango has matured as a contributor. MONGO is, as ever, MONGO and has both been previously desysopped and the subject of a current ArbCom restriction, regarding "tone" within comments, owing to their lack of control when responding to actions that they are not appreciative of/editors they do not approve of. It is unfortunate that people have previously lauded MONGO's "bluntness" in dealing with perceived trolls and the like, since that characteristic seems to have defined some of MONGO's interactions with other established editors. Was the block possibly inappropriate? Perhaps, it might be argued, but then so was the reaction by MONGO that lead to it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

My point in raising that was to show that the two have been involved in disputes over edit summaries before, the first time Tango posting an uncivil one about MONGO, and MONGO warning him. That alone should have caused Tango not to get involved in what was inevitably going to be a controversial block of MONGO over the same thing in reverse. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 01:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think an edit from 2006 can be used to say Tango is "involved" in any significant way. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

So someone's past history only applies when it's convenient? Jtrainor (talk) 08:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• I am calling it shenanigans as well. Have a look at the edit to Mongo's talk page that was the provocation for the "get lost" response. It is pompous, legalistic, formal, aloof, and oddly deferential towards a disruptive editor. Rather that having a dialog on the best approach to editing the 9/11 for verifiability and reliable sources, while remaining civil -- which is what the spirit of the Wikipedia calls for, it appears to me to have been a clever tripwire -- a "gotcha" -- a manufactured but plausible method for imposing a block. The motive I leave to the others who have commented on their past history. patsw (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Asking him to be polite was baiting, is that what you are saying? I just read that message and it was incredibly polite and civil, and explained the issues with great clarity. If that was "provocative" then so is every other warning we give around here. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly so. This unnecessary "asking" and at the same time disclaiming any knowledge of User:Thomas Basboll is disingenuous and obsequious. It was bullying while at the same time formally "incredibly polite and civil" as you characterize it.

Let's be frank. The editing of the 9/11 articles to promote conspiracy theories has a single purpose -- to advance 9/11 conspiracy theories. If you want to actually help the Wikipedia, keep unverifiable, unsourced conspiracy theory nonsense out of the those articles. Playing gotcha with one of the editors as it is my opinion Tango has done here, is going to chill effective editing. patsw (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

MONGO has retired

No one here has mentioned it yet, but MONGO has left the project. Damn. KrakatoaKatie 00:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant. He'll be missed, and 9/11 related articles will suffer for his loss — but I don't expect anyone to actually care about that. It's far easier to chide people for saying things like "get lost" than actually deal with the really serious issue in this article area, and elsewhere. Arbcom did a terrible job with the 9/11 case, and the consequences are already showing up. --Haemo (talk) 01:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As much as I have disagreed with him in the past, he is/was a net positive to the project. I really hope he reconsiders. :/ Orderinchaos 03:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

User:RickK was right after all  :( Count Iblis (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

How many times has he retired now?:) I'm sure he'll soon be back with us again. Merkin's mum 02:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

There is an important principle here, and it seems quite a few admins are unclear about it. MONGO was allegedly uncivil in a content dispute, Tango warned him. He allegedly insulted Tango, and Tango blocked him. That should be enough to call into question Tango's adminship. Tango was, I saw no allegation otherwise, uninvolved in the content dispute. However, when a user is uncivil to an administrator, this was a new offense in which the administrator was involved. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Physchim62. When an admin perceives a user as being uncivil to the admin, it does not matter what came before, it would not be unusual for the admin to overreact, and to use the tools to retaliate. This is why it is essential for another admin to make that decision; Tango could simply have brought the alleged offense here. If there were a reasonable fear of immediate hazard to the project, then this would be the basis for the block, not the alleged incivility in an edit summary on the user's own Talk page.

It is clear that the block was for incivility to the admin, not for the original incivility, for that was deemed worthy only of a warning, which was properly issued (i.e., it was within the legitimate discretion of Tango as an admin, whether it was "correct" or not). The grey area would not be here, it would be in a case like this where the alleged offender then is uncivil with someone else, and then the insulted admin blocks. Was he really blocking for the new offense or for the old one? But that is not the case here.--Abd (talk) 04:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a concrete example. After I warned a user about canvassing, they gave me the finger. [99] This was done after a string of disruptive incidents. It total, it had become clear that the user needed to be blocked, and that's what I did. The block was endorsed by two other rogue admins. [100][101] So, there is no general rule that an admin can't block after an editor insults them. We don't give disruptive editors the option of negating enforcement efforts by using incivility to "involve" administrators. Jehochman ^Talk 06:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Amazing coincidence, that was exactly the incident I had in mind. Yes, two arbitrators hopped in to confirm the block, which was indef for something that might ordinarily have gotten a warning or, in context, a 24 hour block. I brought this up to Jehochman, nicely, that the block -- in spite of the arbitrator support, which was rather odd in itself, being unnecessary -- was actually a fairly serious violation of COI rules. There was no serious challenge to the block at the time, and the arbitrators were themselves, in a sense, COI, part of Abisdy's evil plot (he was warned for "canvassing." Who had he canvassed? Every member of the Arbitration Committee, and only a handful of others. And there was no vote or other process in motion, so no canvassing .... spamming ArbComm members?) but details, details, Absidy wanted to be blocked, he was generally pissed off and was committing wiki-suicide by giving Jehochman the finger, because he knew what the response would be. The arbitrators, essentially, may have been confirming that the block was good for other reasons.... though those would have been, shall we say, obscure at the time. He had not created, yet, the hoax article, nor had any other japes come to light beyond his vote-buying joke during my RfA. What is important here is that the arbitrator intervention did not establish that Jehochman's block was procedurally correct. In any case, Jehochman agreed with me that he'd unblock. I still believe that the block was highly improper. There was no threat of damage to the project, no threat of continued "canvassing," Absidy had said he was done what what he had been warned about. And then he was rude, as described. If Jehochman really wants to insist that this was proper, well, perhaps we do need to look at further process. I thought we were done with our little chat. I was following WP:DR to the letter.

Actually, that argument doesn't work. You can still deal with the situation in the following way: Admin B warns User C for incivility to User D. User C responds by being incivil to Admin B. Admin B can either: (1) ignore the incivility directed at him and repeat the warning and say that he will block if there is further incivility directed at other users; or (2) Report both cases of incivility to a noticeboard. In case 2, this should produce Admin E who can review the warning(s) and the incivility and block user C for the incivility. If User C is subsequently incivil to Admin E, this should be ignored. The block is in place, the User should now appeal the block and demonstrate they can be civil. It might seem like a waste of time, but just like sockpuppet cases, if you take a bit more time and do things the right way, a lot of drama and appearance of involvement can be avoided. If admins don't want users being incivil towards them to "involve" them, then the best way to acheive that is to ignore the incivility towards you - let others deal with that part of the incivility. Trust me - selective ignoring of incivility towards yourself really does work. It is very difficult to say that an admin is involved because of an "incivil comment towards the blocking admin", when said admin has entirely ignored the said incivil comment and blocked for another reason entirely. Carcharoth (talk) 10:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

In normal cases, yes. In cases under ArbCom-mandated discretionary sanctions, no. The purpose of those judgments was, as Kirill points out, to reduce process and increase the effectiveness and responsiveness of admin action. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point. But if I was enforcing sanctions under that Arbcom ruling, I would take taken the matter to Arbitration Enforcement, which tends to deal with this sort of thing much better than ANI. I think this still tallies with the "report to other" bit of what I said. The location also reduced any urgency. A strict AE thread and warning might have made MONGO realise that he is included in the discretionary sanctions as well. Carcharoth (talk) 11:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

A generally valid principle is that if an admin is uninvolved before making a warning, the response to that warning on its own doesn't make the admin involved. For example, if I warn someone about vandalism and then they vandalize my user page, I can still block them for vandalism.

In this case, MONGO was incivil not in response to a simple note about civility, but in response to a note that he was subject to arbcom-backed civility restrictions. If there are any situations where a civil response is needed, that's one of them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Notwithstanding that it was incivility in response to this, and not in response to that, the point is that it's not really on to block someone for telling you to get lost. If we were all to block for that kind of slight, we'd have block logs as long as our arms. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 04:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If MONGO had blocked tango for repeating this incivil comment I suspect that Tango would have a different opinion of the block. --DHeyward (talk) 05:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Dragging stuff up from TWO years ago and claiming it shows a past history of disputes that is relevant (SV) or in fact claiming it is in any way relevant to the current block by comparing two potential wrongs (DHeyward) is so far offf the mark its not funny. Viridae^Talk 07:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

One year and five months. Not two years. Carcharoth (talk) 10:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This "uninvolved" admin's disputes goes back 2 years with incidents as recent as 3 months ago and the current block relates to two edits MONGO made to his own talk page that Tango seems to think is covered by ArbCom on 9/11 articles. Coupling your comments with the most ardent supporters of the block arguing about MONGO's "history of incivility" leads to only one conclusion: The block is what is way off the mark. --DHeyward (talk) 07:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, to the first point, the first warning was only for a comment in an edit summary on MONGO's own talk page (as was the block). He removed a comment on his own talk page with a comment "removing SPA trolling". The SPA is particularly sensitive to the term "trolling" and filed an ANI. It was to this User Talk Page comment that Tango issued his warning as some stretch to the ArbCom ruling. This user talk page edit mentioning trolling generated this ANI whcih generated this warning. No edits on the article talk page were incivil and there were no edit warring. The entire incident is about MONGO's talk page and is simply not about any ArbCom ruling. This is just an angry admin who lashed out because he didn't like being told to get lost. He is stretching the bounds to get this covered by ArbCom rulings. --DHeyward (talk) 05:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Your timeline is awry, the first warning by Tango specifically referred to the matter of ArbCom (and thus enforcement) and MONGO escalated significantly by violating WP:CIVIL.

The closest real life analogy I can think of would be to remind someone not to play ball games, per the big sign in red letters, on pain of an on-the-spot fine, and have that person gently kick the ball at you for giving the warning. No injury is likely from the ball, but it is a deliberate act of insolence and therefore attracts the immediate fine. The reaction by some folk here is akin to complaining about the fine being levied on the basis that the individual has previously been heavily involved in writing up the rules for ball games, and the individual himself has decided to take his ball home in a fit of pique. Broken down, it really is as pathetic as that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

meatball:GoodBye. The advice there is appropriate for situations such as these. -- Naerii 06:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Mongo has "retired" many times, only to come back after cooling off. Same deal here. Mongo has been given many warnings and is on a civility parole. He knows better and the block was valid. To tolerate incivility would be a net negative even if it meant keeping good editors who are incivil. Like I said, Mongo will be back soon, and hopefully he will have learned a lesson.Supergreenred (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's what Tango is trying to pass off as uninvolved

Tango inserted himself into MONGO's talk page as an uninvolved admin: Three months ago he tried to single handedly derail MONGO's RfA because of the ArbCom ruling that deadminned mongo on the same topics that Tango claims uninvolvement in. This is prescient given Tango's present action. Trying to convince a neutral participant that MONGO hasn't changed is another indication of his involvement. Trying to convince another editor that MONGO needs more evidence to prove he has changed. Here he assigns the cause of all previous issues with the 9/11 article disputes to MONGO as he opposes his RfA . And here we have Tango making an incivil edit directed toward MONGO (much worse than saying "get lost". Notice the lack of a 1 week long block. And here MONGO warns Tango to be civil. Again without a block. Was this revenge? And here Tango actually says that calling someone a fool is not incivil and suggests that an admin stop warning people so much. Well, so much for uninvolved or consistent. One thing is clear though, Tango has had some very strong feeling about MONGO for a long time. In his own words, time is unable to heal his wounded ego. He should have taken his own advice here though. Lucky for him, MONGO wasn't irrational enough to block Tango for repeating his incivil comments. --DHeyward (talk) 05:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, lucky for everybody that drama back in 2006 didn't escalate into anything worse. Other than the skirmish way back then which we've already discussed, and the fact that, like 102 others including myself, Tango opposed MONGO's RfA a couple of months ago, I don't see a case to answer here. One of your diffs is repeated above too. --John (talk) 05:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

He not only opposed it, he actively tried to change others opinion to oppose. Hardly the actions of a disinterested admin that is claiming to be "uninvolved". The comments that Tango made on his talk page calling Mongo a "fool" shows both his mindset and his willingness to use and repeat incivil comments. His double standard, and his personal issues with MONGO is the issue, not rehashing the past. His warning for a user talk page edit summary and his week long block for a different user talk page edit summary is hwolly without precedent and his claims of "ArbCom enforcement" ring hollow. --DHeyward (talk) 06:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You have made valid points. Hopefully User:Tango will admit mistakes and undertake not to repeat them. Should that be insufficient, we have requests for comment as the next step in dispute resolution. Jehochman ^Talk 05:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked MONGO after consulting the most recent blocking admin. [102] I also tried talking to Tango, [103] but he's gone offline, and I feel that a 16-block is more than long enough. There was substantial concern about the block, expressed here and elsewhere, among editors I respect, including DHeyward, Jehochman, Kelly, Guy, Giano, Bishzilla, Orderinchaos, Raymond Aritt, Durova, Eusebeus, Alex Bakharev, Newyorkbrad, and others. The consequence of the block seems to be that MONGO has left the project, a decision I hope he'll reconsider, so the unblock may be nothing but a gesture, but I hope it's one in the right direction. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 05:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I am wrong in supposing you need to demonstrate that there is a consensus to unblock, not a consensus to continue the block? If you count names in one direction, I rather believe thrice as many names -and strong arguments- can be counted in another direction. I personally feel that this is inappropriate given the amount of support that has been expressed for this block here, and hope you will reconsider.

I'd also like to add that the drama was dying down, and doing this was manifestly ill-advised from that point of view. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:IAR, WP:BURO, and some page that says something like "not a vote". And count me in as another editor that thinks the block was a bad call in the first place. -- Ned Scott 06:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a distinction between consensus and mob rule. I've seen some terrible decisions made by the latter in recent weeks. Orderinchaos 06:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope MONGO sees this as not just a gesture, but as an actual unblock. I still maintain that there was no blockable offense here. Civility is not one person's right to feel unoffended, but it seems to be construed as such. the_undertow ^talk 06:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

After watching these threads for almost a day and learning more about the history behind this, I think the block was uncalled for. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Relata, it's not a question of counting, but of looking at the strength of feeling against the block from regular editors and admins, and there was considerable strength of feeling, going so far as to trigger an RfAr and MONGO's departure. He had already served 16 hours, which is a lot for telling someone to get lost. I hereby vote that everyone who's told me to get lost and worse be blocked for 16 hours. :-) SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 06:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Very well. I note, however, that "strength of feeling" appears nowhere on the pages describing consensus, for very good reason. I note also that it conflicts directly with Orderinchaos' statements about mob rule.

This should have been closed eons ago, re-opened at AE and overturned there if necessary. What has happened is that it has stayed open here long enough till people have got worked up enough that an overturn is carried out contrary to consensus. This is terrible practice; even worse than the original block. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I read all the comments carefully before unblocking — here, on the RfAr, and on the enforcement noticeboard. I took into account the arguments, the experience of the editors making the arguments, and the numbers. My view is that there was no consensus for the block. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 07:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you please deconstruct that view for us? Treat it like a difficult AfD closure. Combine the strength of numbers and the arguments. Attempt not to avoid any, and tell us why you believe that rather than no consensus, every argument against an early unblocking has been satisfactorily answered, or at least is tangential enough that it can be lived with. Because that is, in fact, what you are saying.

I note also that "experience" should count for nothing here. We don't weight the quality of arguments by time spent at AN/I. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I answered the above question when your statement read "consensus against the block". Since you've changed that, perhaps you'll additionally explain: I was under the impression that no consensus for a block =/= consensus to unblock, especially under the circumstances specifically spelled out by ArbCom. In other words, this unblock was also carried out in defiance of ArbCom's specific instructions, not just long-standing community practice. If this is how discretionary sanctions are going to be met, I fear that ArbCom's recent reliance on them is worthless. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it could be simplified. Is 'get lost,' incivility? I think not. Same as 'buzz off' or 'leave.' It was said in reference to a notice on his talk page. As I said earlier, I don't believe it to be incivil, despite the fact that it offended an admin who had previously traded derogatory remarks with the offender, as pointed out earlier. The blocking admin is involved, and I don't think that any time lapse actually makes one uninvolved, because then it's a matter of subjectivity as far as when one actually becomes disavowed from a situation. If you are involved, you are forever involved. the_undertow ^talk 07:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Involved traditionally means with the articles in question. This re-interpretation of the word to include any negative interaction in years will considerably cut down any effort to police difficult articles. For example, if an admin previously untainted with any contact with MONGO had carried out the block here, your definition would mean he could not do so in future. This is unacceptable if we expect administrative sanctions to work, and undercuts this ArbCom decision, and at least four others, quite directly. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I said. I stated that any editor who had traded derogatory edit summaries with another user is involved. There is a difference between blocking a user for a specific action, and having actually interacted with that editor in a personal debate. the_undertow ^talk 08:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Its nonetheless a direct consequence of this principle, blocking or interacting in an unrelated debate. It means that Moreschi, for example, will have to avoid always people he intends to keep in line in the Balkans-related article. That is absolutely unacceptable. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. This is a wrong dichotomy. No, not every contact makes an admin involved. But as far as I'm concerned, DHeyward has demonstrated a long and ongoing history of bad blood. In that case, I have a strong feeling that Tango should not have issued a block. In fact, I consider the warning either a bait or very ill-advised, especially considering that the use in question is an admitted SPA[104]. MONGO is a rough character, but he is a valuable and productive editor working hard to maintain sanity in a field that is ripe with POV-pushing by fringe conspiracy theorists. If we want good editors to work in contentious fields like 9/11 conspiracies, Creationism, Global warming, Fringe science, ... we need to give them sufficient leeway. Indeed, as a rough estimate, we need to give them at least as much consideration per POV-pushing SPA they deal with than we give to to each of those individually. As an example, I refer you to the discussion above, where we took 48 hours to come up with a 3 day block on a clearly racist SPA with no substantial positive contributions. If we don't extend at least the same consideration to our established and useful editors, simple math dictates that the POV pushers will flush them out. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I am puzzled. MONGO has been issued that courtesy regularly, so I don't think that that particular argument applies.

As to your "sufficient leeway" argument, it has no real standing once its been addressed by ArbCom and viewed as no longer applicable to these articles. Contrary to the spirit of your remarks, this unblock strengthens the hand of fringe theorists and POV-pushers by giving them a handle on enforcement-minded admins, not the reverse, as I point out above. I note that you don't spell out how precisely its inapplicable.

Also, this is not the place to argue for a suspension of WP:CIVIL in articles you think are important. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that MONGO has about 400-500 times the number of contributions that GStS has (depending on which namespaces you consider, and ignoring the fact that MONGO's edits are overwhelmingly positive), where is the 3 year non-stop discussion of MONGO's behaviour? WP:CIVIL is a means, not an end. If we use it to push out good editors while keeping bad ones, we are misusing it. Admins are supposed to use sound judgement, not to issue blocks based on wikilawyering and blind application of policy or precedent. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As I say above, "its important to remember that there still is a community consensus that the kind of atmosphere engendered by many, many statements like that over a long period does in itself have a deleterious effect on articles. If you disagree with that theory, this isn't the place to argue it." We both know that behaviour of this sort from article guardians can push away good editors along with bad. If you disagree, take it to WT:CIVIL and change consensus there, because I think that otherwise there's no reason to continually use it as a justification. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the blocking admin brought his actions to ANI for a review, which indicates to me that even he thought there may have been a potential conflict of interest. the_undertow ^talk 08:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Or the appearance of one. Two different things. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

MONGO has an appalling and extraordinarily long record of incivility. An admin warned him to be civil, and his response was to tell the admin to "get lost". The block was absolutely warranted. We can't tolerate someone who is so seriously and frequently uncivil, someone who even responds to admonitions to be civil with incivility. I cannot understand why some people want to give him a pass yet again. Yes, he has done some good work, but how much good work from others have we lost because of his behavior? Block him for a year. It's long overdue. Everyking (talk) 07:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Your trolling for a WP:POINTy block is duly noted, Everyking. — Κaiba 08:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

My view is that he has no place on this project until he radically changes his behavior. A block was imposed, and I am expressing my support for that block. Please don't accuse me of trolling. I consider that uncivil. Everyking (talk) 08:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, God forbid, next time I'll just say 'get lost'. There is a difference between supporting it and what you said. You could have easily just said 'I supported Tango's block', 'I agree with the shortened re-block', or said 'I disagree with the unblock by SlimVirgin'. You know it doesn't help anything when someone comes along shouting thier personal dislikes of a user and saying they should be removed from the site for a year, knowing that it won't happen when a week-long and half-day block were all contested. If a week-long block or the reblock was controversial in itself, what makes you think a year would stick at all? Punishment isn't a block reason. — Κaiba 08:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm late to the party, but this should clearly have been left for an impartial administrator to handle; doing otherwise gave the appearance of blocking punitively solely because MONGO refused to kowtow just right. Tango seems to have a bad habit of utilizing administrative tools in a warlike manner with editors whom he is in disputes with, and doing so here only inflamed the situation needlessly. east.718 at 08:46, April 13, 2008

And as support you link a discussion where Tango is being attacked on AN/I by nationalist SPA trolls for taking on a sock of a banned user? Pardon me for being unimpressed. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I hate to wax 'real life,' considering this is teh internets, but I will anyway. I agree with east. My Father always said that if I was questioning an action, then I probably made a bad decision. I would not make an administrative action unless I was certain it was the right one, and I wouldn't ask for consensus on that action. the_undertow ^talk 09:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It's perfectly normal to ask for review of admin actions against established editors. Re east718, yes, reusing to "kowtow" to arbcom sanction is likely to result in blocks. MONGO has been here long enough to know that. Perhaps he thought that the sanctions didn't apply to him, only to "those other editors", but that is an unsustainable position. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Appeal process

The ArbCom ruling includes an appeal process: "Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue." If the unblock stands, the next step, as I understand it, will be to appeal to ArbCom.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 06:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFAR - there is already a request for arbitration with relation to this matter. Risker (talk) 07:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that. It looks like it will be rejected, but Kirill does mention the appeal process.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Which was ignored in this case. ArbCom, if you're reading, this is why discretionary sanctions will not work in certain cases. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If the unblock stands (its summary includes the suggestion that the block was not warranted in the first place), I will be appealling to ArbCom. (If Slim had not unblocked, I would have been satisfied that the discretionary sanctions can have an effect on the articles. Do note that the neutrality dispute on the article where this started has now been resolved. And work proceeds civily towards regaining GA status on the article.)--Thomas Basboll (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that although they have declined to consider the matter, two arbitrators at the existing RFAR request have concluded it was a "bad block", and a third who has recused themselves has come to a similar conclusion in their statement. Orderinchaos 11:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Although the unblock was premature, I don't think it's worth appealing or anything like that. MONGO has the message, clearly, and as long as he is on break we should leave him in peace.

Re the RFARB, the arbitrators weren't clear whether any block would have been bad, or if this block was bad because of its length. I think everyone agrees the original length was excessive. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is unfortunate that this block has been defended only as a reaction to the incivility of MONGO's "get lost". As I pointed out in my post to AE Tango's warning to MONGO had been rejected and ignored. That is, MONGO did not just say "get lost" to Tango, he said, as Carl correctly suggests, that he was not acting contrary to the ArbCom ruling and would continue to behave as he was behaving when he was warned. And that's what he proceeded to do. He was blocked, and progress has now been made on the page he was disrupting with his incivility. The block simply worked. That's why I intend to appeal the unblock. One solution, now that a reasonable amount of time seems to be passing, is to block and unblock simply to record ArbCom's assessment of the rightness of the block (in the shortened version, before Slim's unblock). Also, I think the fact that the neutrality issue was settled immediately after MONGO was blocked says something in favour of Tango's judgment. I grant that that assessement comes from a very involved user.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I probably won't appeal, after all. Closing the discussion seems like a better way forward.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Some general points

Some general points:

• (1) MONGO and 9/11 articles. MONGO does good work here, but undoes some of that good work by incivility. The ideal situation would be to have a civil editor that would do the hard work that MONGO does. If such an editor was active on the articles, would MONGO step back and allow that editor to do the work instead? If not, then I suggest we are entering WP:OWN territory. It should always be possible (in theory) for someone else to do the work you do on Wikipedia if you doing that work is causing problems.
• (2) Admins and ignoring incivility and other responses to admin actions and warnings. My feeling is that if an admin warns or takes action against a user, and that admin then responds (angrily or otherwise) to incivility, vandalism, or other actions taken by that user, then they are becoming involved. The best way to avoid getting involved is to ignore the response (similar to WP:RBI), but to still discuss and explain what is going on if the editor is reasonable. This allows the admin to continue to warn and block for other actions by that user, but the admin should be careful to avoid blocking or taking action related to vandalism, incivility or other actions directed against him personally. Either ignore those, or report if it gets excessive. It is a fine line, but once you get the hang of it, it is fairly easy to stick to this. Admins should be mature enough to be able to quietly ignore some things and view the bigger picture. Rule of thumb: if something that someone says about you annoys you enough that you can't ignore it, then you are starting to get involved. Report it to someone else, but still feel free to take action over other incidents. Example (to use the example Carl gave above): I wouldn't block anyone for vandalising my user page, though I would warn and block someone if they were persistently vandalising someone else's user page.

The second point above is a personal view, though, and I realise it is one that not everyone here holds. I do think there would be less drama though if everyone did follow this principle and didn't react quite so much. Carcharoth (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Carcharoth, for that summation, which is very useful. I really should return to my notes on 1920s kibbutzim now, this has gone on long enough, but just a brief reply:

• We will never know if a civil editor can take MONGO's place while the atmosphere in those articles is so difficult. That is the point incivility, that it drives away even "good" editors. I certainly avoid Islam-, evolution-, pseudoscience- or 9/11-related articles, and I'm on the "good" side. So do others.
• The second point is extremely valid except, as I say in response to your earlier comment, that it undercuts the point of ArbCom-mandated discretionary sanctions, which are supposed to be discretionary with a narrow forum of appeal that minimises drama and maximises effective response. This is one of the first time a block has been applied when discretionary sanctions are involved that has been applied against an established user. Given this deplorable response, I think we've just seen the system we hoped would control political and ethnic trouble spots given an effective sucker punch.

That last reason is really why I spent all this time. If it wasn't an ArbCom case, as so many seem to be perplexingly ignoring, I don't think I would have bothered.--Relata refero (disp.) 11:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps more admins need to watch the pages involved. I'm willing to put them on my watchlist, and I hope some other people do as well. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think if established users get reported to Arbitration Enforcement, that would still work. Obviously admins should still act immediately on their own judgement in egregious cases of people misbehaving on articles or towards their fellow editors of the article. But there will always be borderline cases and I think using AE for those, or to review immediate blocks, will work better than ANI. Could I ask that if something like this happens again, that all effort be made to move/redirect the discussion to WP:AE? Carcharoth (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That's very reasonable, especially for MONGO, who if he returns will still be under the discretionary arbcom sanction. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

...I'm on the "good" side... ← What is this "good" side of which you speak? I mean, do you really believe anyone considers themselves to be on the "bad" side? — CharlotteWebb 12:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:ROUGE. Orderinchaos 12:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Scare quotes. Also, to be seen within the context of scaring away "good editors". --Relata refero (disp.) 13:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Community desysop possible?

One issue that should be addressed here: Tango is not under voluntary recall. However, several members of the Wikipedia community (including myself) have requested recall on his talk page, and at the (soon to be rejected) ArbComm case. Is it possible for the community to do a reconfirmation or desysop, without the consent of the admin in question? (IMO, the community gave him the mop, and the community should be able to take away the mop.) Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not possible. Thank God. -- Naerii 14:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I say that, because it's never happened before and general agreement in the past has been that it's something we don't do and don't really have much power to enforce. I guess the community could take it upon itself to do it and see if a steward agreed to it, but by the time people actually agreed on how to go about discussing it the incident would have long passed. -- Naerii 14:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope RfA requires the users consent before being transcluded onto the WP:RFA page. Gnangarra 14:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the right solution. Tango's behavior and actions were, in my opinion, way out of line for an administrator, but asking for decision on this heated issue via mobocracy is not a good way to resolve anything. Tango needs to understand that all he's got in his hands are a mop and a bucket, and needs to try harder to stay away from using his admin abilities where there's even an appearance of a conflict of interest (and here there's clearly more than just an appearance); we should be discussing how best to ensure Tango learns that lesson, not whether it'll be the torch team or the pitchfork team who get him first. JDoorjam JDiscourse 17:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you would get consensus for that, even if that is how we did desyopings. You can contribute to the arbcom case though. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this intensely, Tango acted in good faith and in my humble opinion, his treatment of mongo's behaviour was correct in the light of mongo's history. Merkin's mum 23:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

Since nobody has done it yet, and I feel this is the only way to proceed in any direction from here... community input is requested at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tango. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 15:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Per my talkpage comments, this RfC is biased in both intent and wording and I have strongly suggested to User:Tango that they do not participate - which I shall not unless the scope is significantly widened to include review of the context of MONGO's reputation for incivility/bluntness, the background to any editor conflict, and Tango's overall conduct as an admin and contributor, and is drafted in a far more neutral wording. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

User:MONGO's previous incivility is almost completely irrelevant. Nothing about MONGO's history changes the fact that, if User:Tango thought MONGO warranted blocking because MONGO was demonstrating incivility, he should have asked another admin to do it. Period. By leaving a rather arrogant message, and then blocking MONGO for his response rather than getting a neutral third party, Tango pretty clearly abused the admin tools. This is something that absolutely needs to be discussed, and Tango choosing not to participate in an RfC would only make things worse. (whether or not you contribute is, of course, totally up to you and less central to the issue.) JDoorjam JDiscourse 17:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"Previous incivility is almost completely irrelevant..."? Huh? You do know why Tango was placing a warning on MONGO's page in the first place? I'll give you a clue; it starts with WP:C.., ends with L and has a V in the middle. With the attitude of "clearly abused the admin tools" I suggest that you head over to the RfC - since you are clearly the audience for which it was created. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Tango has decided to just leave a note on there. And, as I said to LessHeard vanU, if you believe the RFC I wrote is biased, create another one, and if it's neutral enough, I'll certify it. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 18:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Time to close

Can we just let this thing die and mark it as resolved? The block was a bad idea, but it has been fixed. Everyone has had a chance to get off their righteous indignation about the situation. Hopefully, after some time away to relax, MONGO will be back. It's time to just move along with life. --B (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Not good enough; this is an opportunity to address a problem plaguing Wiki. I got here by accident but feel I must comment. I have myself been subject to several blocks over the past 2 years; invariably for incivility towards the blocking Admin with whom I have been in dispute. This appears to me - (aware that even expressing reservations about Admin actions may be interpreted by the very same Admins as breaching WP:CIVIL I'm being restrained) - a classic case of an Admin blocking an editor (1) with whom he was in dispute and (2) for remarks addressed to himself. To me, the continued toleration of this sort of behavior by Admins is the cause of more friction and bad feeling on Wiki than any amount of alleged incivility by non-Admin editors. If we are going to "clean-up" Wiki we must start by imposing the highest standards and most rigid enforcement of those standards on the Admin community; when that is done draconian blocks of ordinary productive editors can be contemplated. Sarah777 (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This needs to be dealt with, and not just archived and forgotten about. Tango has driven a long-time contributor off this site. That is not acceptable. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 18:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just checked; MONGO is editing for more than three years and has over 40,0000 edits to his credit (and not just tagging and de-tagging etc). He get into to a row with an Admin - zap- a week-long block by an editor who in six years has contributed 1,200 edits to mainspace! Sarah777 (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do ask a helpful old-timer to explain histories of incivility and ArbCom restrictions to you, it might all make more sense to you then. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You can make sarky comments as much as you like Relata, and others can archive pages as fast as they like, but the general feeling is that people are sick to death of Admin abuse, and won't tolerate it. Admins, wishing to continue in their roles, would do well to note this. Giano (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Repeated addition of copyright violation in Abbas Kiarostami article

User:BehnamFarid added youtube link to Abbas Kiarostami which i felt was copyright violation. I reverted it (see diff but he added it back. The issue was raised at talk page where i elaborated WP:COPYRIGHT#Linking to copyrighted works but Behnam is in no mood to listen. 1, 2 and 3 and the respective edit summaries smack of personal attack. I posted a query abt this at Wikipedia:MCQ#Youtube_link_to_a_video_in_Abbas_Kiarostami and the response was to delete it. His message on MECU's talk page states that I "suffer from the mental ailment of intolerance" and that I "may be a fundamentalist", which i feel is a personal attack on me. I posted a warning message on Behnam's talk page which he deleted (see this. Finally the discussions at my talk page, MECU's talk page, article talk page will show that Behnam doesnt seem to be constructive editor and despite my repeated explanations of wikipedia policies on article talk page, he is indulging in personal attacks and addition of youtube link in a Featured article. I request and admin to look into this and take necessary action against User:BehnamFarid....thanx...Gprince007 (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

In the course of the past two days User:Gprince007 has been pursuing an utterly senseless undertaking with obsession, the like of which I have rarely, if at all, witnessed elsewhere. Regarding the things that I have already written on this issue, I refer the interested reader to (1), (2), and (3).

I draw attention to User:Gprince007's explicit statement in the above text: "which i felt was copyright violation" (note the word "felt"). It appears therefore that User:Gprince007 takes action on the basis of what s/he feels, and not of demonstrable facts. S/he has been a cause for nuisance despite my repeated requests that s/he communicate her/his concerns with YouTube. Evidently, since the material to which I had linked is located on YouTube, which is a reputable site, and by no means uploaded to Wikipedia, either by me or by any other person known to me, it is not my responsibility to take action on account of the feelings of some individual, in particular when that individual turns out to be an obsessive one.

I feel compelled to mention that yesterday User:Gprince007 deleted my singed comment on the talk page of the entry on Abbas Kiarostami on account of my comment containing original research material and that, according to some Wikipedia guideline, no such talks were permitted on Wikipedia. The available evidence will unequivocally prove that my language became abrasive (and I do not regret that) when User:Gprince007 proved to stop at nothing; someone who feels entitled to remove someone else's intellectual contribution to a talk page, on account of the dubious argument that the text contained original research material, is to my best understanding a bigoted person. I admit that it is painful to be told that one is bigoted, but I strongly believe that at least sometimes calling a spade a spade is one's moral responsibility; one simply cannot be so hypocrite as giving a person like User:Gprince007 the false impression that her/his doings on Wikipedia were alright. S/he must be made to understand that there are limits, also on Wikipedia; one cannot continue acting on one's impulses and expect that people will keep their heads down. If User:Gprince007 expected differently, it goes a long way to showing that this person's contact with the real world is either non-existent or at best very tenuous.

One last point. It appears that User:Gprince007 not only is impulsive, but has a strange relationship with truth. By reading the contents of the talk page of Kiarostami's entry, one will realise that the above statement by User:Gprince007, that "and the response was to delete it" is an outright lie. All individuals, with the exception of one (see later), voted for maintaining the link. The exception is User:Hux. Two comments are in order. Firstly, User:Hux came in after User:Gprince007 had deleted the YouTube link already for a number of times (as can be verified, Hux's comment dates from yesterday night, just before 9 O'clock). It follows that User:Gprince007 had been carrying out with her/his nuisance during the time that all people involved had been against her/his actions. Secondly, reading Hux's comment, one will realise that Hux had been unduly influenced by the false assertion of User:Gprince007's that the video at issue violated copyright laws. As should be evident, to this date User:Gprince007 has failed to clarify where her/his assertion is based on; we now know for certain that s/he only feels that something were amiss with the copyright of the video at issue. I rest my case here. --BF 21:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

ps) One last thing concerning the charge that I deleted a specific message placed on my talk page. Any person who has ever visited my talk page will testify that I never keep a message on my talk page that no longer is in need of responding to; I consider my talk page as a kind of desk, and thus keep it clean at all times. The accusation that I might have deleted User:Gprince007's message on my talk page for some specific reason bearing on User:Gprince007 has therefore no relevance here. It can be easily verified that I deleted the message in question after having responded to it. --BF 21:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Your case fails. That youtube account has 410 videos of different tv clips from different channels. It is absolutely clear that this is a copyright violation. On Wikipedia, linking to copyright violation is your responsibility, not youtube's. This is not my opinion, this is policy, and you have been furnished with it. Stop being dishonest. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it would seem your case fails - A search of Wiki policy concerning YouTube shows no blanket ban or any policy stating that if falls upon the Wiki editor to verify copyright on YouTube (which can be found here) YouTube has a policy in place for anyone with a complaint regarding material they hold the copyright to. At which point whomever posted the video is liable.SteveCoppock (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If you believe that I am acting dishonestly, which you are entitled to, then it must reflect something of your inner being, for I have not been acting dishonestly. I do not know where the number "410" comes from for instance. I have only known one version on YouTube of the video at issue and that had already been viewed by more than 4000 viewers (I am entirely unaware whether this video is to be seen elsewhere; I only know of one version, to which I have made a link, on the official YouTube website in the USA). To my best knowledge, something that is illegal never gets as far as of the order of 100 views before it is taken down. You owe me therefore an apology for accusing me of being guilty of something that I could not have been. Further, you have badly failed to give attention to what I have been telling: I have repeatedly told, and politely, to Gprince007 that s/he should address her/his concerns to YouTube rather than acting like a police on behalf of others; I have never condoned use of material here or elsewhere whose use violated copyright laws. --BF 22:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

ps) Oh, now I understand the significance of that number. Well, that may be the case, however if the person uploading the video at issue is guilty of violation of copyright laws on such a massive scale (as you seem to be suggesting), then how comes that her/his membership of YouTube is tolerated? Why does YouTube allow this person to carry on with what you suggest to amount to illegal activities on a massive scale? If you are so certain of your case, why don't you write to YouTube? But I am digressing, the relevant fact is that Gprince007 has never given any reason why s/he thinks that the video should be illegal; s/he has even not once made mention of that number "410". --BF 22:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, proof the video is a copyright violation? The opening credits name Farabi Cinema Foundation as the production company. Unless Farabi has a habbit of publishing on YouTube, which I highly doubt, it's a copyright violation. And all this about YouTube dealing with copyright violations, or whose responsibility anything is...it's all utterly irrelevant. Articles do not include links to copyright violations. Anyone who knowingly places such a link is in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Your statement does not hold water. It is predicated on the assumption "Unless Farabi ...". You have not shown that they do not do. Since the quality of the video is inferior, releasing it on YouTube might actually boost the sales of its high-quality version, or attract more people to movie theatres showing the film. But of course, I am only speculating. --BF 23:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are speculating, and dangerously so. This is all for the same reason we don't give image uploaders the benefit of the doubt when they upload demonstrably copyrighted images; we actually have a Foundation-established method the uploaders must use to prove they are not in violation of the copyright. Just the same, we don't link to copyrighted information unless there is reasonable proof the host is not violating the copyright. This is usually established naturally as the host is usually the original publisher; when that host is, instead, YouTube, and the upload was made by some random person with a YouTube account, we assume he is in violation of the copyright. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I dislike dramatic language as substitute for reasoning. What was so "dangerous" about my "speculation"? How many lives were lost, and how many people became homeless through my "speculation", one might wonder. As it happens, none. Also I dislike your use of "we", as if I were an outsider and intent on abuse; I am as much part of Wikipedia as you may believe you are. Using my own words and turning them against me, is another conspicuous aspect of your text. May I therefore request you kindly to remain neutral and to the point? The point I made, and you did not shine any light on with so many words, was that in a discussion such as the present one, one cannot predicate a statement on issues that are not a priori true. Otherwise, by making an argument long enough, one can prove everything and disprove everything. Sophistry is the name of this game. --BF 01:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the issue, BF. Someguy put it better than I could ... we can't assume good faith on copyright, for good reason. Blueboy96 01:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You are also using that detested word "we". May I respectfully ask who you think you are and who you think I am? Further, as testified by all that I have written on the present issue, I have never advocated use of illegal material, not here on Wikipedia, not anywhere! The issue under discussion consists of one thing, namely: Has Gprince007 been justified in deleting a link made by me to a video hosted by YouTube prior to ascertaining that the video at issue were illegal? My answer to this question has been and remains to be NO! I cannot act on the mere suspicion of an individual; as should be evident, to this very moment the only thing that we know for certain is that Gprince007 had only felt the video to be illegal. This cannot be a cause for action, especially when I have repeatedly asked Gprince007 to write about her/his concerns to YouTube. If you, i.e. all of you who have made a habit of calling yourselves "we", cannot assume good faith, that is your problem; insofar as I am concerned, YouTube is run by a reputed organisation and I have not the slightest reason to believe that they may be acting against law. When, if at all, they unplug the video at issue, I will also remove the Wikipedia link to that video. If you wish to accuse YouTube and thus Google of dishonesty, then please put that in writing, and I shall pass the document to them for consideration. Please ask yourself the following question: will I be able and willing to testify against Google and Youtube under oath in a court of law? If the answer to this question is in the negative, then your present accusations legally amount to libel, for which you can be sued. --BF 03:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If only an excerpt of that film was posted, it could be claimed under fair use (someone correct me if I'm wrong). As it presumably includes the whole film, it's a copyright violation. Even linking to works that violate copyright could expose the Wikimedia Foundation to serious legal danger. If you continue to post this link, you will be blocked. Blueboy96 04:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Why this threatening language? My link has been to a site registered in the USA and one that is not known for illegal activities. In other words, I cannot be held responsible when the link made is not to an illegal site. Or are you suggesting that you will take action against me on account of a material offered by YouTube?! Why don't you address the problem to YouTube itself which has made the video clip available? As I have said elsewhere, when I made the link, the video had already been viewed by more than 4000 viewers; to my experience, illegal videos never reach above 100 viewings before they are taken down. You also seem to disregard the fact that I have repeatedly asked Gprince007 that he report the issue to YouTube, yet I never received a word from him why he felt the video were illegal. You further disregard the opinion of the people who initially voted for keeping the link intact (consult the talk page, and you will see that they overwhelmingly were in support of the link --- incidentally, the talk on this subject matter was not even initiated by me); the only opposing view came in yesterday night, just before 9 O'clock (all of these details are already mentioned above). --BF 04:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

There are certain instances where consensus has to be trumped. Copyright is one of them. If you don't understand that by now ... Blueboy96 04:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Then put a blanket ban on YouTube and save all of us the trouble. Also could you consider to be more respectful when addressing others? What is "If you don't understand ...", if not hubris? --BF 04:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Someone at YouTube may or may not have deemed the video is viewable there under circumstances which do not put YouTube itself at risk for copyright violation, but the uploader still could be liable. Either way, copyright status (or exemption) can't be inferred by the presence of a video on YouTube. Even so, the pith is that without a clear path to either a copy authorized by the copyright holder, fair use or public domain, WP:COPYRIGHT#Linking to copyrighted works clearly does not allow linking to content, since doing this could be taken as contributory infringement. Hence this link can't be lobbied for at all, it could be (and likely is) a copyvio and must be gone. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, but if this were just an excerpt, fair use could be claimed. But since BF clearly stated in the provided diff that this was the entire film, it has no place here. Blueboy96 05:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Watching the above heated debates taking place, i feel my stand has been vindicated. BehnamFarid keeps telling me to take this issue with youtube. Well Behnam...the thing is i am a wikipedia editor and my loyalties lie with wikipedia. It is a wikipedia policy to not to link to copyrighted works and i am just ensuring that it is enforced. If tommorrow there are 1000 sites posting copyrighted works illegally and some editor links to them in an wikipedia article, do u expect people to write letters and send notices to those 1000 websites??....No, they'll just remove the links at our end (ie in wikipedia article). If youtube or any other website carries copyright violation, they may or may not take action, but we shd make sure that we at our end dont be a party to this crime by linking to it. You seem to be a fan of Kiarostami's works but u dont realise that by posting a link to the video, u a harming his interests in more ways than one. Many movies are available on internet in violation of copyright laws and what if everybody links to those works in their respective wikipedia article??? the purpose of copyright will be defeated and it would fail to serve it purpose. In view of the above discussions, i hope u will see reason and desist from personal attacks and stop linking to copyrighted works.... Thanks Gprince007 (talk) 07:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Gprince007, you are using hyperbole. I did not link to an illegal site (call YouTube an illegal site frequently enough, and you are likely to be sued for libel), and certainly not to 1000 of them, and you never said, neither here nor in our earlier communications leading to the present public discussion, why you felt that the video were in violation of copyright laws. A number of things. The video shows some digital clock in the lower part of the frame, suggesting that it is most likely a recording of a television broadcasting in Iran (the numerals are in Farsi script). Both television and Farabi Film Foundation are owned by the public in Iran; they get their budget for 100% from the treasury. It may be, and I don't know it for certain, that the mere fact that the film has been shown on Iranian Television, has made it public property (this logic does not apply to, for instance, BBC, since despite being a public broadcasting company, it is financed by the fees paid by individuals). The scenario would be that Kiarostami and his associates have been commissioned by Farabi Film Foundation to make this film, and have received a certain amount for the commission and thus transferred their copyrights to Farabi Film Foundation. The latter being fully financed by the public, the work now legally belongs to the public. A case in point is the National Portrait Gallery of the United Kingdom. Sometimes ago I was negotiating with them for getting one of their photographs transferred to Wikipedia. What they told me was that although they are a national institution, since (and this is the most relevant aspect) they had to earn part of their running costs from leasing photographs to the rest of the world, they were not in a position to permit use of their photographs on Wikipedia (although they wrote me that they were in serious negotiations with Wikipedia for arriving at a mutually acceptable agreement, since they were regularly receiving similar requests as mine). This shows that if National Portrait Gallery were fully financed by the state, the photographs in their collection belonged to the public. As I said, to my best knowledge Farabi Film Foundation is fully financed by the Iranian state (the foundation is one of the things that the reformist president Mr Khatami bequeathed to the nation) so that even if the video were on YouTube without a written declaration of consent on the part of Farabi Film Foundation, in principle its exposure on YouTube does not constitute an illegal act. I see this as a possible reason for the video having stayed on YouTube for so long. A somewhat related point, insofar as I am aware, copyright laws in Iran are far more relaxed than in the West; for instance, in the West (at least in the USA) a photograph becomes public property 100 years after its publication; in Iran the period is just 30 years.

All the above contributors have merely speculated as to the suitability of linking the video to Wikipedia, and all on the conservative side; they all seem to wish to err on the safe side. Therefore my original suggestion that you write to YouTube remains, even though I shall no longer insist on the link. One should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. You talk about your loyalties to Wikipedia, but why should you not be loyal to the best interests of the humanity? As I wrote extensively about on Kiarostami's talk page, the video at issue contains almost all aspects of Kiarostami's creations in a way that only those who know the cultural background within which the work has been created can fully appreciate. As someone who knows this cultural background, I saw it as part of my loyalty to humanity (not to Wikipedia which is but a medium) to tell the rest of the world of the hidden treasures inside that short video; what I wrote on the video was only a fraction of what is contained in it. In my opinion (and this is very personal), cutting out that video link can be likened with aborting an unborn child on account of the possibility that that child might become a criminal later in life. In the case at hand, no one has thus far come with a convincing argument why the video on YouTube were illegal. You may feel vindicated, but to my best judgement, your apparent vindication will be at a cultural expense. I invested a great deal of effort in this enterprise just for salvaging a most valuable addition to the Wikipedia entry of Kiarostami. I stop here. --BF 15:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Removing messages from talkpage is unacceptable if there is no harm or intent towards anyone. As I understand it, Youtube itself is responsible for removing copy-righted material. So unless it is proven that youtube's video is violating copyright (by contacting them), then I do not think it is valid to remove it from Wikipedia. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not acceptable. There are all sorts of sites that contain copyright violations. We do not link to them. Period. We do not wait for the site we link to to see the error of their ways and remove the copyright violations for us. We do not link to copyright violations. Period. Corvus cornix_talk 21:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You may be on the wrong page; the discussion here is not about "all sorts of sites", but about one specific site, namely YouTube. --BF 23:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User:BehnamFarid. The issue is just one site who by its nature checks against copyright violation. If the youtube video is copyrighted, then it is their job to remove it. But the video has remained for more than a year. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 04:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if we're talking about YouTube in particular. Wikipedia cannot rely on an outside site to manage copyright violations. Wikipedia must assume good faith, and that there has been an explicit release of copyright. Unless the person who uploaded the video that is being linked to has an explicit release of copyright from the copyright holder, and has displayed that explicit release on their Youtube upload page (the image page), we must assume that the image is copyrighted and that the upload is a copyright violation. Corvus cornix_talk 17:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I would persume by your statement: "Wikipedia must assume good faith" that it is the other way around. We should assume good faith with regards to the fact that the video is posted on a site that takes copyright violations into consideration. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. If I encounter links to YouTube, I remove them, and I expect them to remain removed until such time as the person providing the link proves that the person who uploaded the video to YouTube had permission to do so from the copyright holder. Any edit warring over the link should lead to the person adding it to be blocked until they acknowledge that Wikipedia doesn't play around with copyright violations. Corvus cornix_talk 20:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Corvus is pretty much correct here. There is no blanket ban, per se, on Youtube links. However, the only allowed links would be those that document a release of copyright. Assume good faith merely requires that we assume that the person posting the links didn't know that they were violating policy (if this was the first occurrence), and warn them from doing it again. --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't think threatening blocks is the correct action. Probably a discussion on the actual video is merited. I think it depends on the site. If the site deletes copyrighted material, then I do not think it is the responsibility of the user in Wikipedia to worry about that site. Afterall, they are not viewing the video in Wikipedia. I could understand it if the video or image was uploaded to Wikipedia and was viewed within Wikipedia from Wikipedia. But if it is just an external link to a site whose responsibility is to insure free material, then we should WP:AGF. Basically the approach being suggested is "Guilty until proven innocent" whereas it should be "Innocent till proven guilty". --alidoostzadeh (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. is pretty clear. Corvus cornix_talk 22:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I gather, it says: "if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Correct me if I am wrong, but it does not say if you guess. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

<-undent: There is no need to repeat the arguments ad nauseum. Links to copyright violations will be removed. If they are restored, the person doing the restoring will be blocked. End of discussion. Corvus cornix_talk 23:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Realist2

Realist2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is blocked, and the block extended, for referring to another user as a bigot. It looks to me as if this was exactly correct: the other user, Bsrboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who he had previuosly considered a friend, made several grossly inappropriate racist edits to his talk page.

• A - This shows 86.29.141.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) calling Realist2 a black bastard and adding porn to his page.
• B - shows the same ip adress calling Realist2 a nigger and telling us his "secret" to getting new IPs when they are blocked.
• One of these ip's request for unblock was "I should be unblocked because im white, why are you treating the nigger so nice, you should be hung. Seen here CC.
• A friend of Realist2, "The Elfoid", reported the ip adresses. This has been archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive396#Problem with IP address user- has dynamic IP so editing from constantly changing address
• [105] confirms this is Bsrboy
• See also User talk:Bsrboy. Note that he completely confesses and admits to his racism.

Under the circumstances, calling Bsrboy a bigot does not seem unreasonable, and Realist's exasperation at being sanctioned for doing so is not surprising. I think we should consider unblocking Realist2 and unlocking his talk page. Guy (Help!) 07:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. I think rather too much is made of WP:CIV, sanctions should be imposed on those who habitually disrupt the project with gratuitous incivility, but to slap blocks on someone who is responding to extreme provocation just by calling a spade a spade? I don't think this is helpful, we should not be punishing contributors who appear to be in good standing just for an occasional intemperate comment. Gatoclass (talk) 09:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Good Lord, someone is subjected to a slew of racist vitriol, and we then block that person for saying the one who made the remarks was a bigot? What is this place coming to? Raymond Arritt (talk) 09:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's time to 'unblock' to me. R. Baley (talk) 09:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Extremely bad block, both the original, but much more the extension. Also a procedural error, in that User:Golbez denied two separate unblock requests. I strongly suggest unblock - indeed, I was on the unblock page, but, given the amount of discussion, I decided to wait for a bit more exposure. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I responded to the 2nd and 3rd responses; my feelings were, unblock is not for admin-shopping, and he had been denied by two admins already at that point, there was no harm in responding again. When he asked for another admin, I remained silent. --Golbez (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

And actually, in retrospect, in that regard I apologize for my actions. --Golbez (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm tired of this shit. Incivility is grossly misunderstood. We are not obligated to act as British nobility at all times. Accusations are not incivility. Thicker skin. In addition, civility is not one's 'right to be unoffended.' Call me a bigot and I'll defend it, but I won't block. He's unblocked, because I'm not going to allow another MONGO situation occur. People should not be blocked pending outcomes; they should remain 'free' so they can express their concerns, and then action can be taken. I have never understood the 'block until terms are met' philosophy. He's unblocked. Feel free to drop me a line or take it up here or at RfC. the_undertow ^talk 09:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Realist2 reacted sloppily and emotionally to blockable, hateful taunting and baiting. No way did his response call for a block. Rather I think, some kind words and a broad, friendly hint to hold off on hurling back at the bullying would have done. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

There's absolutely no parallel between this open-and-shut unblock based on an obvious misapplication of WP:CIVIL and the MONGO problem. Neither should this justifiable outrage be used as a stick with which to beat civility. What I'm tired of is this continual ranting about how its mis-applied. I see it mis-applied no more often than notability at AfDs or naming conventions at WP:N, so lets retain a sense of proportion. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Then feel free to take me up on it, as we have obvious differences in the MONGO case. It is a parallel. Civility, as a reason to complain, has been taken too far, as has personal attacks. I will say it again, because it is important to me, but there is nothing about this wiki that says a person has the right to feel unoffended, unaccosted, or unhurt. People are too often hiding behind incivility when something upsets them. If someone pisses you off, it's not incivility, but that is the majority interpretation. That needs to end. There are 17 ways to call someone a dick, but we allow it to proceed as long as people hide behind the essay. Civility needs some serious revisions, as does the essay. If someone is an ass, call them on it. That's real life. If they are offended, they either need to defend or get over it. the_undertow ^talk 10:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Let's take it off the board, and take it to WT:CIVIL. We actually do care that people by and large feel unoffended, unaccosted and unhurt, because that creates an atmosphere in which collegial disussion is impossible. So, by all means, lets have this discussion. While I agree that people "hide behind incivility" to win content disputes, and argued at length that that was so during the Dbachmann arbitration, that's got nothing to do with what you are claiming is also a mis-application of civility. I look forward to hearing your opinions on Jehochman's complaint there, which has been discussed since 3 April without any of the people complaining about over-enforcement or mis-application here turning up.

I note that I will personally be quite relieved if some of the rules are relaxed, as it is difficult sometimes to keep my temper in check, especially when everybody else seems to be letting theirs go. So let's at it. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocking a user for calling a bigot, a bigot? It's time to ignore mushy-headed civility that some administrators are trying to impose on editors and actually tackle the problem users, otherwise it will spell the end of this site. — Κaiba 10:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I am greatly in favour of increased civility on the Wikipedia, and I also think that both the original block and especially the extension were bad. Blocking someone for trying to defend themself from a racist attack is about as low as a person can go. Far better to have offered Realist2 support in dealing with the bigot (I think that offering support to editors who are having difficulties should be seen as one of the duties of admins). DuncanHill (talk) 10:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• I did discuss this with the blocking admin on IRC last night, and to be clear I do not think that the blocking admin did anything wrong or evil, I just think that on reflection a mistake was made in good faith. I hope we can fix the mistake. I've talked to the user by email, English is not his first language so some small allowances must be made. On the AN thread about civility, Rspeer said something about nobody noticing is a relative newbie gets hit with a block - this guy is not even a newbie, he's got a decent number of edits, and he was viciously attacked by a bigot (there, I said it again). I think we should try to fix the damage. Guy (Help!) 11:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I really really doubt that a native or near-native fluency in English is needed for comparing the potential offensiveness of the word "bigot" (or almost any other word) with that of "nigger". I'm hoping the real factor was a lack of familiarity with the whole situation. That said, I am completely dumbfounded by the number of declined unblock requests. — CharlotteWebb 12:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to say I can begin to sympathize with Realist2 after he had explained the problems he has been having, and am comfortable with this unblock at the moment. However, being personally attacked does not, and should not, give you license to attack others. I cannot believe that people actually think it does. Also, you all might want to change WP:NPA which is policy, and remove the part that says "It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user. " if we're not going to stick by that; which it does not appear that we are. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The user in question has not simply acted "foolish or boorish", he has viciously attacked Realist2 in a fucking racist asshole way. And Realist2 has not "attacked others", but rather lashed out only against the original attacker. That was not particularly wise, but understandable, and in no way a sign that the user has general tendencies to problematic behavior. I would have expected an admin who looked into the issue to offer some sympathetic advice, not final warnings and blocks. I think that was a serious lapse of judgement and would encourage you to look a little bit deeper and to act more considerate in the future. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I just managed to get my ip block thing removed to have the chance to say thankyou for looking at my case with a little compassion, but i wont be coming back to wikipedia, im retiring, im grossly unhappy with the way wikipedia reacts to these things. You follow these rules like robots not realising there is a person suffering. I have a few things to tie up and then im gone. You were prepared to pay the other guy more attention than myself, you have now lost a person who makes 2200 positive edits a month. I hope this case will make things change, i wish the next guy who is betrayed by a racist friend on wikipedia all the best, i know from my experience that there is no1 out there lokking after him. Still this block will remain on my record and i will be viewed in the same light as the other person involved. Realist2 (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It is an accepted part of policy and our best practices that we do not engage in personal attacks even against trolls, racists, and even spammers. While I sympathize, I cannot condone that sort of behavior. I am sorry you are retiring, perhaps in the future you can deal with this. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and folks please note that this user was not blocked for calling a bigot a bigot, but for calling a bigot "You fucking bitch...". Much of what is said above seems to be unaware of that. When you leap to someones defense it often helps to do some independent research on the matter instead of just reading what was said about the situation. _(1 == 2)^Until 19:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The user was taunted and baited. His highly emotional response was not at all acceptable but it was understandable. Rather than a block, a friendly warning to not let loose with any more outbursts would have been enough. Then, after two or three warnings, if he had carried on with it, a block would have been called for but this is not what happened. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, like this one? The user was warned before the block. As for two or three warnings, that would be a matter of discretion. The user was not carted out of the kingdom, it was a short block. The fact is when people get highly emotional they sometimes need to be temporarily removed from Wikipedia. _(1 == 2)^Until 19:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The pith is, they don't look like friendly warnings to me. To an emotionally upset editor reeling from a hateful, race-based baiting spree, I don't think they came off as you intended, but upset him even more. You clearly meant to be helpful, but some editors won't be thinking clearly after being dumped on with hate like those taunts. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

A hell of a lot more friendly than "Get a life you racist twat". Frankly I don't see anything wrong with the warning. Wikipedia is not therapy and when people are emotionally upset and not thinking clearly they sometimes act in a way that requires them to take some time out from the project. Reasoning with the user did not get a response, so the user was blocked. If you don't like that try to propose a change to our policies. _(1 == 2)^Until 20:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. No need for therapy, but maybe a shred of WP:wikilove? The warnings were neutral, bureaucratic. The user was wailing, crying. This is a community of people behind these usernames. I don't think the blocking admin did anything wrong, I think the user lost his head (so to speak), way, but our approach to targets of these extreme attacks in the aftermath could use some tweaking, maybe. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Getting kicked in the head doesn't give you the right to kick them back. Responding to a personal attack with another personal attack is pointless and only works against you. HalfShadow (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I agree all the way with you. I'm only talking about how the block itself was handled. On the other hand, he was indeed unblocked in the end, so I wouldn't rush to say the policy is botched either. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• The real problem as I see it was that the block review did not really address the (admittedly poorly stated) unblock rationale. It would be a mistake to make a Fedeeral case of this, but it would also be a mistake to miss an opportunity to learn something. My interactions with the user showed someone hurt and angry but quite reasonable, and the block message on the user page of the person baiting him was something of a clue. I am not a great thinker of deep thoughts, I tend to believe that people who get blocked by admins who engage in civil debate (as Rjd was on IRC) have generally done something to deserve blocking. But when I looked at the talk page and the unblock requests and the user page of the harassing user, something did not look quite right. I think what we got wrong was to fail to properly, independently assess the background. It was an easy mistake to make, and I am sure I have made the same mistake myself in the past, so it's a learning opportunity. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Most definitely was a learning experience, however, I feel we are sending a message here that we really shouldn't be, and that is: Its okay to call somebody a "sick fuck" as long as they call you a "black bastard" first. Not good. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, spot on, let's not send that message. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. The initial outburst needed to be contained, and was, and that seems reasonable. The issue here is how we handled the situation after that, and also how we informed the user about the issues, the block on the other account, and the fact that, regardless of his outburst, the other user's quite unacceptable behaviour was also being addressed. Realist's problem was that he saw himself as being treated more harshly than his aggressor, who was of demonstrably less value to the project. This was a valid concern. I have learned fomr this, that long-standing contributors have earned a little more explanation and a little more in the way of updates - much as we handle OTRS cases, in fact. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• In general, understanding of this case has been hampered by a lack of knowledge about the full scope of Bsrboy's racist vandalism. I felt constrained by the privacy policy not to reveal his IP addresses; however I did not realize that he had admitted his own IP on User talk:Realist2, which would have removed those constraints. Although it is possibly too late to help Realist2, perhaps the admin community should be apprised of the full scope of Bsrboy's logged out editing, including sustained racist and bigoted attacks on both Realist2 and articles he was working on.
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.29.133.181
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.29.132.129
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.29.132.151
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.29.136.132
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.29.134.157
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.29.143.168
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.29.141.188
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.29.133.152
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.29.143.36
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.29.142.171
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.29.132.226
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.29.132.151

I am also sorry I was out yesterday as I very likely would have lifted the block, or at least joined the conversation here. Rjd0060 and other unblock-reviewing admins did not know what I knew. Sorry about that. Thatcher 23:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Are these blocked? As a rangeblock it would only be 4096 users. Is it worth checking to prevent further recurrence of this nonsense? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The range is blocked for 2 weeks and Bsrboy (talk · contribs) is indefinitely blocked, having been offered the chance to come back after a month of good behavior. However, he does not seem to grasp this, and the application of a cluestick at User talk:86.29.129.106 would be appreciated. Thatcher 23:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Igorberger harrassment

User:Igorberger is harrassing me.

Most of his dislike for me stems from disputes in Talk:Anti-Americanism. The problem is that recently he has taken his "battle" to other articles. He is obviously checking my contribs and following me around to get involved with whatever I do.

At the Village Pump, I proposed a general policy that anti-[nation] articles follow the naming convention (identity), e.g. only self-identified anti-Americans should be called anti-American. [106] He made no contribution there, but announced (dishonestly) in anti-Americanism Talk page that I wanted to delete all these articles [107].

Then he took the issue to the Talk page of an article I've never read, edited, or discussed, and used the same technique to rabble-rouse against me. He told editors there, none of whom I know, to watch out for me. Talk:State_terrorism_and_the_United_States#All_anti-country_articles_are_POV. Again, he misrepresents (can I say "lies about"?) what I said (I haven't said anything should be deleted).

I recently made a small edit to the article on Phillip K. Dick. Within hours Igor showed up, and started editing that article, including reverting my edits. [108]

He filed a sockpuppetry case on me, in which he compares me to Hitler, with a The Final Solution reference (it is hard to follow): [109]

In the anti-Americanism article itself, his comments toward me are always dismissive and often personal. I would ignore them, but when he follows me around to other articles, it becomes impossible to ignore.

Here he says he can't assume good faith because I am "trying to influence and change Wikipedia policy." [110] He also doesn't refer to me by name but by as "the SSP & SPA" I don't even know what SSP means (I'm sure it's not good) but I think SPA is single-purpose account.

Here he continues belittling me: [111]

Here he belittles my attempt to explain my position: [112]

More dismissive comments: [113]

There is more, but I won't go on. The main problem is that I cannot ignore him, because he has decided to follow me around Wikipedia. Life.temp (talk) 12:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, back when Life.temp started the Village Pump discussion, Igor advised people to consider Life.temp's status as an "SPA" before considering his suggestions [114]. I had reverted that comment on the grounds that it was harassment [115], to which Igor responded by leaving me this [116] on my talk page. I then responded on his talk page [117]. I've had my own long-term problems with Igor and short of blocking him for being a general nuisance, we should at least make sure he doesn't engage in blatant harassment. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:29, 13 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Igor has just posted a Wikiquette Alert for Life.temp: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Life.temp. This was done after he was notified of this ANI. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:03, 13 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Igor has always been a "problem" editor, and he's got into bother before but this is too far, following someone around harrrasing them is wikistalking--Phoenix-wiki 13:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree, and he was been warned far too many times. Tiptoety ^talk 19:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This needs to wait until the RFCU is processed. Life.temp is certainly displaying a lot of well known sockpuppet tendencies. Jtrainor (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(From my entirely civil interactions with) User:Igorberger, they can be difficult to understand at times. From other observations I have made (concerning previous posts to this page), this can be a problem. And Igor also may be inclined to state suppositions as if they were already proved. If Igor can refrain from such inflation of language which can easily be percieved as incivility in the heat of the moment, then Igor's concerns may be able to be addressed. The other user should not be the subject of incivility from Igor. There seems to be a need for further processes to proceed however. And hopefully Igor can come to understand how to engage in discussion with a user if possible, rather than rushing to judgement. That is my understanding, I just happened to have found this thread, though I have not been involved. --Newbyguesses (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• His last comment directed at me: "Sorry the current version looks like shit. Definiton this definiton that, la, la , la, blah, blah , blah! Get it together and make an article, not a dictionary definion as it looks now that it have become!" [118]. It's not that any one comment is extreme. He's not abusive. It just disrupts the consensus process by never stopping, and there's a red flag when he takes it to other articles.
• I requested informal mediation for the anti-Americanism article, but I'm not optimistic. Right now, people are trying to en masse revert every edit that's been made in the last week.
• The acronyms are confusing. Using the Help Page search told me what SSP means, but returned no results for RFCU. Life.temp (talk) 13:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Igor Berger, Igor the Troll...

• Igor apparently trolls as a hobby. He has a Web site and a blog dedicated to blogging about his well-spent time in troll-dom: http://www.igorthetroll.com/
• The "About Me" link identifies him as Igor Berger: http://www.igorthetroll.com/i-am-igor-the-troll.php
• The"My Company" link contains the same profile as his Talk page, and includes Wikipedia as a "project.": http://www.ivbsolutions.net/

Ban please. Life.temp (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Apparently, this and an editor named John Gohde are hot topics in the blogosphere....
• http://naturalhealthperspective.net/2008/01/26/gohdes-apprentice/
• Somebody put this guy on a gerbil treadmill and use the energy for something useful. He's probably User talk:ArthurMongli too.

Life.temp (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say he describes himself pretty accurately on his website: "a really nice troll". Well, nice as long as you tolerate his trolling. If you express any discontentment, he bites. He seems to talk incessantly regardless of whether he knows what he's saying or even has anything to say. This is probably the one individual at Wikipedia who can influence what I do here, in that I've come to avoid anything he's involved in. He's just that difficult. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:32, 14 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we should all be allowed to give him the inattention he deserves. Ban. One more then I quit wasting time with trolls...

In his profile at another site, he lists his contributions to Wikipedia under the heading "Internet Troll.":

http://www.londonfetishscene.com/wipi/index.php/User:Igorberger

Life.temp (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaks for itself. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The possibility of Life.temp sockpuppeting needs to be dealt with at the same time. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bsharvy (2nd). He appeared on Anti-Americanism just after the last sock was shown the door and has shown much the same tendencies. Marskell (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of us have reason to believe that 'Life.temp' is yet another incarnation of the banned user Bsarvy, aka 'Rachel', aka 'Bshanvy'. After Bsharvy was banned he vowed on the Anti-Americanism page to come back to edit the page using different identities and so far he has been as good as his word. About every week at Anti-Americanism we get a brand new user editor who homes straight onto that page and who despite being new always displays an in depth knowledge of wikipedia procedures, and is especially adept at launching complaints procedures against anybody who opposes his edits - like what we see here. Bsharvy edits from Seoul, Korea and I have no doubt that 'Life temp' is from the same exactly the same place. Ask him. Colin4C (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"A lot of us" who have the suspicion strangely seem to consist only of those who've been in disagreement with him at Talk:Anti-Americanism.

For the record though, I have the same suspicions, I just doubt the existence of any actual evidence, or the need to devote any energy to the pursuit of this suspicion. Life.temp hasn't actually done anything wrong yet, aside from disagree with Marskell, which as you can see from Talk:Anti-Americanism is not a good idea. Life.temp revert-warred with Igor a bit, but that seems to have been a one-time thing. This seems to have more to do with him being in disagreement with the majority there, than with the compulsion to be ever-vigilante in prosecuting sockpuppets of blocked users. He hasn't actually done anything wrong yet. He's not even being disruptive, unless being in vocal disagreement with the majority counts, and it doesn't.

Anyway, whether Life.temp is a sockpuppet or not, the fact remains that this is a circumstantial suspicion, and Igor should be keeping the suspected sockpuppet discussion to the suspected sockpuppet page, not following the user around reminding people of the suspicion at every turn. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:12, 14 Apr 2008 (UTC)

East718 is running an adminbot

[Discussion moved here from elsewhere]

I just tried to post a message here laying out irrefutable evidence that you're running an adminbot on this account. Ended up in an edit conflict with mrg3105. Following the thread led me to where you openly state on mrg3105's talk page that you're running a bot on your account to delete pages.

I don't understand. When last I checked, running an unauthorised adminbot on your admin account was about as forbidden as it gets. Grounds for an emergency desysop even. Has the bot policy changed? Have you actually been given permission to run an adminbot on your account?

Hesperian 12:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I frankly don't see what the problem is. I know this is verging dangerously close to rules-lawyering, but if your definition of "unapproved" is "approved by BRFA and RFA", then no, this robot is not approved. That said, there are circumstances under which normally untoward behavior may be acceptable, but only when the full implications are understood and considered carefully. This is exactly what I've done - this bot has been vetted and run by several other admins in the past to the tune of over 130,000 deletions with absolutely no error rate. Considering that removing useless pages is a reasonable thing to do in my eyes, I figured since the job can be done and there's no reasonable process within which to do it (an adminbot policy), I might as well go ahead. I also don't see why running this robot is inherently evil; I have been trusted by the community to use my buttons and I'm making a good use of them - I take full responsibility for my actions and am prepared to face the consequences should something mess up. Lastly, it's not as if I write adminbots with some devious intent to damage Wikipedia - quite the contrary. It's performing a task that I'd do manually anyway with an accuracy most flesh-and-blood administrators would envy.

That said, here's why I'm deleting all these pages: being orphaned, they serve absolutely no internal value, as nobody will ever arrive at it from a link and being how we don't search in the Talk: namespace. They only amount to clutter that is prone to all sorts of foolishness - I recently went through all Image talk: pages and found tons of vandalism; those I passed off to another administrator to delete. More unwanted effects of these pages existing is that they may prevent future pagemoves, and also waste resources in fixing whenever the target changes. Also, since these pages have no history, no discussion ever took place on them at any time.

I welcome whatever other comments you have, provided they don't contains threats of emergency desysopping, something we reserve only for compromised or vandalizing accounts. :-) east.718 at 13:08, April 13, 2008

More and more it seems that people here actively seek to read benign comments as threats or personal attacks. Perhaps we should give this trend a name: "The Mikkalai effect" has a nice ring to it.

I have no opinion or comment on this issue except that if it is now considered acceptable to run an unauthorised adminbot, then community standards on this point have altered beyond recognition in the last year or so.

This requires wider discussion. I'll move this discussion to AN/I.

Hesperian 13:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, all that are being deleted are orphaned talk pages. This is utterly uncontroversial maintenance, and I'm glad someone is doing it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC) I was mistaken. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I have a small problem with it, though. Images that have been moved to commons shouldn't have their local talkpages deleted, because they sometimes contain important information and discussions. If bots are doing it, later, when asked, the deleting admin has no idea what happened. That's happened to me twice. (If East's bot only deletes pages with no history, that's not a problem.) e--Relata refero (disp.) 13:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

They are not all orphaned. Carcharoth (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

He seems to have defined "orphaned redirect talk page" as the talk page of a redirect. They are not orphans and we normally leave (want) these so I don't understand why these are being deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll need to look into this more. I was under the impression they were all orphaned pages with no edit history. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No, these are not orphaned talk pages in the sense that the "front page" has been deleted, but orphaned in the sense that very little points towards them ("what links here"). I suspect a confusion in terminology here. Carcharoth (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was asking questions on Hesperian's talk page, but I'll ask them here instead. I did ask East to stop the bot when objections were raised, and he did so. Thanks to East for doing that. I personally have no problems with the "not-so-open-secret" adminbots, but only when there are no objections, and only when they are needed. My main concern though is the lack of discussion. If this had had the stamp of approval at WP:RfD, then fine, but it seems that adminbots can't be discussed openly, and so they end up doing things that cause objections due to lack of advertisement and discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You know, I just don't really see the huge issue. He's only helping Wikipedia and doing tedious work (regardless whether or not it's being done by a bot) that most admins wouldn't feel like doing, while refraining from producing errors. I'd rather thank him than expect an explanation, at this point. However, I'd ideally prefer all who use bots in general to make sure it's known to the community & make sure there's no opposition, and make it known a bot's being used on his/her userpage if it's not on a seperate account. нмŵוτнτ 15:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems with the adminbots doing stuff that has approval. I have seen no sign that this has approval, and JLaTondre who, unlike me, is active at WP:RFD, has objected, and so have I. Carl first said he has no objection, then realised he had misunderstood what was happening here. My wider concern is that Misza, who wrote the original script, added a line or two to exclude backlinks from Wikipedia: and User: namespaces when considering whether a talk page was orphaned, and seemed to think he could do that without needing to discuss that anywhere. He effectively redefined what "orphaned" means, and that is over-reaching. Carcharoth (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, if JLaTondre is of the opinion that a redirect's deletion requires discussion, it requires discussion. His expertise on redirects predates mine and his judgment is sound. I am frankly annoyed by the view that deleting stuff is helping Wikipedia by doing tedious work. Some seem to have expressed that view without giving any thought to what exactly is being deleted. Deleting the right thing is valuable work, deleting the wrong things is not... WjBscribe 02:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Some questions

• "this bot has been vetted and run by several other admins in the past to the tune of over 130,000 deletions" - could you expand on that bit. Carcharoth (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Misza13 created a bunch of bots. They're open source. Other admins use them... --Maxim_(talk) 14:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Should the actions of such adminbots be discussed before they are used? Carcharoth (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
      • If you use an adminbot, the admin in question knows what he's doing. I think discussion is unnecessary bureaucracy and waste of time. I prefer not to have long, circular discussions. Maxim_(talk) 15:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
        • That's a fairly horrible argument to make - "it must be okay, if he knows enough to use it, he knows what he's doing, so lets let him as he will". I really hope "we're going to presume you know what you're doing" is never adopted as policy in something like this. Achromatic (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Do you check that there are no redirects pointing at the redirects (ie. double redirects)? If there are, then you are creating work for User:RedirectCleanupBot, and if one of your deletions is incorrect, then the subsequent deletion by RedirectCleanupBot will be wrong as well. Carcharoth (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Aren't double-redirects bad and are usually fixed? Secondly, won't creating work for RCbot be a good thing? It's a program designed for that use. A few dead redirects in Talk: namespace don't hurt anyone that urgently. --Maxim_(talk) 14:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Are double redirects usually fixed? I don't know. RCBot assumes that the deletions creating the dead redirects were correct. Your line of argument is "not relevant here", which may be correct. "A few dead redirects in Talk: namespace don't hurt anyone that urgently." - so why do this at all then? Weigh the pros and cons, but to do that you need to openly discuss things first. Carcharoth (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• The talk page redirects are not all orphaned. The majority are links to WP1.0 assessment pages (which update themselves) or other bot-generated {{log}}s (which don't always update themselves), but there are other lists (manual ones) and other pages linked as well. It would be better to fix those links before or just after deleting the redirects. Carcharoth (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't understand you... how can a talk: page be both a redirect and one that has useful information? :-/ Maxim_(talk) 14:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    • It takes people from an old link to the correct location. The information contained in the redirect (indeed in any redirect) is the correct location. If the correct location still exists as a page, the redirect may be needed. Misza, as can be seen below, saw that many "Wikipedia:" and "User:" links are not very useful, or are from bot-generated lists, and then extended from that to assume that all such links are not needed. Many are not, but not all. Carcharoth (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• "since these pages have no history, no discussion ever took place on them at any time" - um, these are redirects left behind by page moves. The reason they don't have history is because the pages got moved and the edit history is in a new location! <takes deep breath> Maybe you mean redirects that were edited and then turned back into a redirect? Carcharoth (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The redirects as a result of pagemove are redirects that are deleted. Such redirects are completely useless. Maxim_(talk) 14:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    • You are completely and utterly wrong. Read Wikipedia:Redirect. Carcharoth (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The community has repeatedly shown at WP:RFD that your statement is incorrect and against consensus. In most cases, pagemove redirects meet all the criteria of when not to delete a redirect. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• "I recently went through all Image talk: pages and found tons of vandalism; those I passed off to another administrator to delete." - could you provide examples and more details? Carcharoth (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Random vandals see an image, go to its talkpage and post random comments. A bot that has a strict set of conditions, like for example (Anonymous users only edited that page, contains a filtered word, and has one edit) can clean these up easily.
    • Thank you. I asume they blank the page, rather than deleting the page? Just in case they make a mistake, you know? Carcharoth (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• "More unwanted effects of these pages existing is that they may prevent future pagemoves" - really? How? (I genuinely don't know what you mean here). Carcharoth (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Non-admins can't move a page to a page with an edit, even a redirect, unless it's a revert. For example, I tried to move User:Maxim's JS test account/t to User:Maxim's JS test account/s using that account. It didn't work. Maxim_(talk) 14:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes. And this is standard knowledge. What I question is whether they really prevent future page moves. That is actually highly unlikely in my opinion, and should be dealt with at the time of the initial move, or when the problem arises. Carcharoth (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• "and also waste resources in fixing whenever the target changes." - I agree with this - you are referring to double redirects, right? I have a horrible feeling I have only ever fixed article double redirects when moving, and have never checked for talk page double redirects... Carcharoth (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • If the page the talkpage redirects to gets move, double redirects may ensue. You got this right. Maxim_(talk) 14:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Does the page that asks us to check for and fix double redirects, after we do page moves, also ask us the the same for the talk page? Carcharoth (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Finally, where has this been discussed before? This is the most important of the questions! Carcharoth (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • See my comment right below. Maxim_(talk) 14:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Which one? This is an important question, so please try and provide a sensible answer and not "not everything needs to be discussed", which is a complete non-answer. Carcharoth (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Carcharoth, why do you think that everything needs to be discussed? East's only helping the project. Many other admins run adminbots (MZMcBride, DerHexer, Quadell, Misza13), to name a few. I don't officially run an adminbot, as javascript isn't considered to be a bot, for all intents and purposes, it is one. It's never been bureaucratically approved or anything, yet it causes no harm and only helps. Maxim_(talk) 13:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree with Maxim.--Phoenix-wiki 14:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Oh, wait, me too answers have no content. Strike that. Carcharoth (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Get some class, Carcharoth. Srsly. Maxim_(talk) 14:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hesperian objected to the adminbot, not me. I've actually made an admin bot request on East's talk page. This sort of thing is precisely why admin bots should be brought out into the open. Sometimes, regardless of the merits of this case, adminbot actions do need to be discussed. Carcharoth (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have problems with the bot issue. I do, however, see that pages were deleted that shouldn't have been. While deleting the talk page of a redirect is not really harmful, it is our normal standard to leave these and consolidate the discussion at the target article. I don't think these should have been deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The pages that should be deleted are discussion pages with one edit, which aren't needed for redirects. Maxim_(talk) 14:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

They only have one edit because they are redirects!! Did you not read the qusetions you objected to? Carcharoth (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Examples

• [119] - includes Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience/Articles attracting pseudoscientific edits/publicwatchlist - the talk page now no longer shows up on the watchlist (it didn't when it was a redirect either, but that's not the point here).
• [120] - includes Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Articles/Page3 - automatically regenerated list, so no problem.
• [121] - includes Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Articles/Page6 - used to be maintained by User:WatchlistBot, but now an archive.
• [122] - includes User:Joan-of-arc - an old warning linking the user to the talk page.
• [123] - includes User:Will Beback/Things - could be being used as a watchlist, but regardless, the appearance is that Talk:Island Oak got deleted, when in fact it is alive and well at Talk:Quercus tomentella.

More available on request. Nothing really major so far, but redirects are cheap and this is not really needed. Carcharoth (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap. But they also should some use. Discussion pages with one edit, aren't needed for redirects, they're wholly useless. And for example, with the Island Oak example, you seem to be implying it's a vandal target. That's quite a good reason to delete, as it has no use but being a vandal target, no? Maxim_(talk) 14:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk page redirects do have value. The consolidate discussions and avoid someone inadvertently placing a conversation on the redirect's talk page (where it will probably languish unnoticed) when it should have been on the target's talk page. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

In this case, as talk page redirects created following page moves, that shouldn't be a problem, I don't think. Carcharoth (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. People do not always get to talk pages by clicking the "discussion" button. Sometimes the bookmark it or manually type the "Talk:" in front of the article name if they want to go there directly. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You are right. Anyone who wants to test this, click on Island Oak (10 links from other articles), and then look at the URL in the browser bar. It says http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_Oak. Now type "Talk:" in front of that and hit return. Oops! Not very likely, but because redirects are cheap we tend to leave them in place unless there is good reason to delete them. See, I told you that JLaTondre knew about redirects. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Maxim, what are you talking about? I'm not talking about vandal targets at all. Could you please get the distinction clear between a talk page redirect created following a move (these redirects have "one edit" by definition) and a normal redirect created from scratch. Redirects are complex things sometimes. That's why we have WP:RfD. Carcharoth (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That's the point of these deletions... to alleviate more bureaucracy. Maxim_(talk) 14:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

We alleviate bureaucracy by deleting pages that shouldn't be deleted? I don't follow... -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a note. Dunno what's the exact code that east718 is running, but the one I wrote has an explicit exclusion in line 55 that ignores backlinks from User: and Wikipedia: namespaces. Why? Because when I was writing it I noticed nearly all of these are lists of articles (more often than not automatically generated reports, rarely user lists) and as such can safely be discarded from the count. Миша13 14:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly the sort of thing that should have been discussed somewhere first! "I noticed nearly all of these..." That is the sort of over-reaching that happens if things are not openly discussed. And no, publishing the bot code doesn't count. There is no way I would have known what that bot code meant. Carcharoth (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ here. You don't discuss ever single deletion you perform, do you? You rather apply your best judgment, some common sense and perform the action. And that's exactly what I do when writing adminbots - analyze a broad set of examples, determine what I'd do in each case (the tell-tale admin judgment plays its role here), then translate those rules and patterns into a machine readable code. At this point I might rule that the task is not applicable to a bot and drop it or narrow its range. If it's done however, I just make triply sure that everything behaves as expected and let it loose. As a result of this careful design cycle, I don't have many complaints to handle on my talk page. Миша13 15:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

True, but the idea of "99% is OK" kind of falls down when you are talking thousands of edits. 1% of 10,000 is 100. You are also assuming that 100% of the errors are detected. Let me put this bluntly - are you prepared to start a discussion on Wikipedia to get approval for your "exclusion in line 55" in your code? Carcharoth (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Srsly, UN:N much? Where did I say 99%? It was so long ago I don't even remember if there were any non-lists in those backlinks (remember that templates like {{article}} add backlinks too, which are entirely useless when the article itself has been moved). This might've been as high as 99.99% but again, who cares? By doing what I did I understand that I'm personally accountable for all and any of those 40K+ deletions I did back then. Did I get any specific and substantiated complains to any of the deleted redirects? Not to my memory. If it were "oficially approved" and stuff, would it be any different? Not really; the operator is still held accountable for his bot - responsibility doesn't get diluted just because the bot was widely discussed. What follows from this reasoning is the current status quo of adminbots (operated secretly, discussed privately among trusted tech folks). Миша13 16:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said to Maxim, it looks like no-one cares because you are using bots to take actions on obscure pages that no-one cares much about. Try and do this to redirects to articles in main namespace and you would get a different reaction. If you would discuss the one first, why do you not feel any need to discuss the other? The 99% was me hypothesising a quote, not directly quoting you - sorry about that. As for official approval, I read somehere recently that you are the archetypical example of the kind of bot operator that doesn't need to go through WP:BRFA because your bots are so good. Well, I'm not so sure any more. What I would like to do, as a test, is to generate a "what links here" list for the 40K+ "talk page redirect" deletions you carried out, and see what percentage of those links are to WP1.0 pages (many of which will have updated now and no longer be a problem), how many are to other lists, and how many are legitimate links from the Wikipedia and User namespaces that should have been updated before the redirect was deleted. Carcharoth (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you noticed you seem to be one of the only ones that want to discuss this on and on and on? No one has displayed such an acute desire for such discussion. Maxim_(talk) 15:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that is more because redirects are boring. Very boring. Have you ever been to WP:RFD? Misunderstanding has always bee rife about redirects and what they do and why we need them and why they are cheap. My jaw literally dropped when I saw that you had written: "The redirects as a result of pagemove are redirects that are deleted. Such redirects are completely useless." I see you haven't responded yet to what I wrote up above: "You are completely and utterly wrong. Read Wikipedia:Redirect." I can't drop this while people (in this case you) say things that are completely wrong and misleading. Carcharoth (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a simple page in projectspace, it can be broken. Please point out why my statement is illogical, and not sending to read some guideline that half of us have never read nor consciously follow anyhow. Maxim_(talk) 15:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion#Redirects and WP:RFD will be more helpful? I'm sorry if I was a bit sharp earlier, but there are some basic misunderstandings being made here: (1) That redirects created following a page move are not needed (that is only the case if they are orphaned, and not always even then); and (2) These redirects have "no history" - well of course they don't! They are redirects left behind after a page move - the edit history has moved. These two misunderstandings are so basic that I find it alarming that people are writing bots to deal with redirects without knowing this. Carcharoth (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm only saying that discussion pages aren't really needed. Maxim_(talk) 16:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Redirects point people to the correct page. Page locations are not only captured in internal links, but also in bookmarks, external links, search results, etc. Counting internal links in no way determines the real usage of any redirect. Redirecting talk pages serves a purpose and they should not be arbitrarily deleted. If some think they should, then they should recommend a change to our CSD policy vs. applying IAR across this many pages. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this the "no history" thing again? The talk pages do exist. The articles do exist. What has been deleted here is the redirects to the talk pages (I presume the redirects to the articles are still intact). I still think this might be a misunderstanding here, does this make it any clearer? Carcharoth (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Policy

I think it is clear from User:WJBscribe's redirect bot's RFA that the community wants adminbots to be run on a separate account, and that each adminbot has to go through RFA. What's going on here seems to be problematic and should stop until things are clarified. I suggest discussing this at WP:BN. If it is determined that a broad community discussion is required to change policy, then we can come back here. Jehochman ^Talk 15:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the community is paranoid of adminbots. For example, I once tried to get a separate account at Commons; I was denied, and the reasons included just the fact of what it is. Maxim_(talk) 15:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like East decided to ignore our rules about admin bots when they prevented him from maintaining Wikipedia. The rules really do get in the way of maintaining Wikipedia's administrative requirements in the specific area of automation. Perhaps we should ask ourselves, how can the rules be changed so that using IAR to do this is not needed? _(1 == 2)^Until 15:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop characterising this as "he was doing the right thing". There are clear, logical points made above, by me and others, that these are not orphaned talk page redirects (redirects with nothing linking to them), but are redirects where there are incoming links from Wikipedia and User namespace that were ignored due to the code being written to ignore links from those namespaces. Misza (who wrote the original code) and all the other admins who ran the code, deleted pages that they had redefined as orphaned when they in fact were not. I do realise what Misza means by WP 1.0 assessment pages, and other bot-generated lists, but I disagree with the assumption that "nearly all" such links in those namespaces (Wikipedia and User) are from such "list" pages. And even if it was nearly all, the presence of other links means that a bot is not suitable for the task, much as I'm sure that people will sleep easier in their beds tonight because 35,000 redirects are gone. It may not matter an awful amount in this case, but it is the attitude of "I know best and I'll write the code and do it without discussion (or only with a few people)" attitude that really gets me. It goes against the whole Wikipedia ethos. Carcharoth (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

In your opinion, this might go against the whole Wikipedia ethos. I disagree. And few agree with you here. If it were such a big deal, it would be a. raised earlier and b. many more people would be discussing this. Maxim_(talk) 15:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I fancy as people catch on that what we have here is a case of ignore-all-consensus-that-adminbots-require-RfA there will be a little more concern expressed. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

In this case the community has approved an adminbot for redirect work - User:RedirectCleanupBot. If its role is to be expanded, the community should be involved. Some time ago, I asked East718 to cease the use of his account for the deletion of redirects but it seems my request fell on deaf ears. That is disappointing. I have long felt that the goal of having repetitive tasks automated is a good one - but some sensitivity is required. Finding out what tasks require human feedback and evaluation requires consultation. That has been sadly lacking in this case. Where the community has clearly delimited a task, going behind its back in this way undermined trust in the approval of adminbots. It is completely contrary to the goals I had in mind when I openly proposed an adminbot and received the community's blessing at RfA. I am saddened to find that a redirect deletion script has been run in such a cavalier manner without consultation with people like JLaTondre or Rossami - admins heavily involved in redirect discussions. Expediency in deletions is not necessarily progress. WjBscribe 02:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What's the point of this thread?

Honestly, what is it? Carcharoth, what are you aiming for? Maxim_(talk) 15:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

To get you to understand what a redirect is? Look, I've said above, most people don't really deal with redirects. That is why it looks like it's only you and me here. My main points so far are:

• Misza should either discuss or remove undiscussed "namespace exclusions" like the one he described above.
• All admin bots should have their source openly discussed to avoid future problems like this.
• People should read Wikipedia:Redirect.

Is that short enough? Carcharoth (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The title of the thread is East718 is running an adminbot, not "Carcharoth's private playground for acting like a condescending know-it-all using the excuse of an admin invoking IAR to do some good". Maxim_(talk) 16:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

a condescending know-it-all?? Please try and keep your comments civil and focused on the subject at hand. We've had users blocked recently for less incivility than that. RxS (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Maxim, do you really think it is acceptable to say that? Did I deserve that from you? Carcharoth (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Your comments above haven't exactly been very angelic-like, either. But I hope I have somehow made my point here. Maxim_(talk) 16:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the more I read it, the worse it makes you look. You are free to retract it at any time. I hope the summary I just wrote is enough evidence for you of my good faith in all this. I'm trying to improve things around here as well, you know? Maybe think about that next time, hmm? Carcharoth (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, this is one of the better cases for ignore all rules. WP:BRFA and WP:RFA on a bot is, at least from what I've seen, rarely a completely rational discussion about the bot and/or its owner, but rather turns into a long, drawn out referendum on trusting technology as a whole. That said, the benefit of successfully passing both is that doing so provides the operator with "legal cover" should something go horribly wrong with the bot's operation; for, the community would have presumably said, by approving the bot, that "we'll explicitly take the risk." So, while running a bot on a sysopped account is highly discouraged due to likely ineptitude in coding (e.g., take a look at quite a few scripts on the tool server that needlessly bring it to a screeching halt), if, on the other hand, a particularly skilled coder is convinced that an incident is unlikely to occur due to implementing extremely good checks to prevent them from happening, then it's within the realm of ignoring all rules to run one in order to clearly make the encyclopedia better.

That said, it's still risky for a bot owner to run a bot on an admin account unless he's/she's 100% percent certain how it works, why it works, and if/how badly it can go wrong as well as how often. However, since both misza and east don't usually need to be beaten with the proverbial cluestick when it comes to coding, I'd say it's okay to simply "let it slide" until something demonstrably causes damage or disruption to a significant degree, again, per WP:IAR. After all, this thread was started because someone found it— not because it was actually causing problems. --slakr^\ talk / 15:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind adminbots if, like all bots, their actions are discussed. I have objections to the specific actions of this bot (see above) and it seems there is precious little I can do about it because people are ignoring that and focusing on the general adminbot issue. Carcharoth (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, East isn't actively harming the project. Go make ANI theads about those who do, like nationalist trolls. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Among the pages he's deleted are ones that shouldn't have been. I hardly see this as helping the project. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've got nothing against his adminbot, and I'm speaking as someone who's been blocked by it - the advantages of it outweigh the disadvantages vastly. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

has anyone ever brought 40K+ redirects to DRV in one go before? Carcharoth (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe a DRV is necessary. The value of the talk page redirects outweighs their deletion, but I don't believe their value outweighs the hassle of restoring them. I think a discontinuing of the deletions is sufficient. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You've lost me. It's irrelevant to me how the talk page redirects were deleted. I just don't want to see any more deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if the developers hadn't changed the logs recently so that deletions show up in the watchlists, no-one would have spotted this. I expect a lot more "adminbot deletions" threads to show up in future because people will now see the deletions on their watchlists. Carcharoth (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed more people will notice what has been going on for a rather long time now, due to a change in how the same information is presented to them. Go dig through the logs and you will see this is not an uncommon practice. The rules should describe not prescribe our best practices, and IAR is a safety measure to make sure that happens. Right now the rules prevent automated maintenance of even the most non-controversial admin act. This is a tempest in a teapot. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If it is, I fail to understand why there's a problem in changing the rules. --Relata refero (disp.) 16:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that what people are doing right now, out there, is not always best practice. There is a tension between describing what is "current practice" and correcting what is wrong about "current practice". It is my assertion that Misza dropping the "backlinks from Wikipedia and User pages" from his adminbot's definition of an "orphaned talk page redirect" is an example of an under-discussed practice that went under the radar mainly because most people don't care about redirects, and because deletions didn't show up in watchlists until recently. And if anyone reading that didn't understand it, that is why it needs to be discussed, not left to a group of bot operators to make edge decisions about obscure pages. Carcharoth (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

With all sincerity, it is because people act like skynet is going to take over Wikipedia. That is not hyperbole, they use those very words when the idea is brought up. The rules will catch up with practice eventually though. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

And the specific question of redirects? What about them? Hmph. Only Spiderman cares about redirects. Carcharoth (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Spiderman is a very caring person. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with Maxim and Until here. I participated in the discussions for the last couple adminbot RFAs and the discussion to give the anti-vandal bots rollback. Many of the reasons for opposing are downright paranoid, pure policy wonking, or other complete nonsense like the belief that any action that requires admin tools requires a full manual review. I'm still amazed that RedirectCleanupBot was able to pass an RFA. Mr.Z-man 18:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps one of the reasons admin bots get a bad name is because of (in my opinion) pointless and not-clearly-defined tasks like this, where backlinks from Wikipedia/User namespaces are ignored (still not convinced by the explanation), and from which one might assume bots are simply not capable of doing admin tasks. I'm quite fine with adminbot tasks, even without a bot flag – but when one has a history of not-too-thought-out unilateral admin actions and desysopping suggestions from a Wikimedia system admin, I'd expect that IAR might be applied a little less quixotically. Gracenotes^T § 19:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've got to agree here that East is guilty of the crime of trying to improve the encyclopedia. This issue of admin bots has been brought up so many times in the past, and looking at admin action statistics, its obvious that many admins use such things. When there have been issues with deletions, East is usually the first person to undelete any pages and if you look at his talk page, goes out of his way to help recover images and what not. I think this current run was a good idea and only attracted attention since it happened to watch page's talk pages. So lets move on and keep writing please? MBisanz ^talk 23:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No, this last run was not a good idea. It deleted things that should not have been deleted. I also agree that he was trying to improve the encyclopedia, but that was not the result with these particular deletions. If anyone believes talk page redirects should be speedy deleted, then they should be seeking community consensus for that. Hopefully, when East is next active, he will agree with my request to not continue in this practice. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Also not seeing the problem. If people can find cases where East is wrong (and they will be fairly isolated), I would trust him to revert himself on those. There really is nothing for anyone to do here - a whole stack of the deletions appeared on my watchlist but they were all correct ones. Orderinchaos 02:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I'm not sure what your basis is for deciding that the incidents where he has been wrong are isolated. Neither he not you have reviewed the deletions in question. A lot of them contained only one revision - in due course those redirects to deleted pages with only one revision clarifed... WjBscribe 03:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC) would have been deleted by RedirectCleanupBot. A bot approved by the community for that purpose. The one revision limit was because it was felt other such redirects deserved human review. Deletions do not appear on watchlists, they go largely unchecked. I think it is time the extend of East718's script aided deletions is properly scrutinised. Redirects are on a cursory inspection the tip of the iceberg. WjBscribe 02:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe RCB deletes talk pages. And deletions do show up on watchlists now. seresin ( ¡? ) 02:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletions now show up on watchlists? What a lot changes when one goes away for a bit... And RCB does delete talkpages that point to deleted pages. If their destination hasn't been deleted, well "redirects are cheap" or we have RfD... WjBscribe 03:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

All logs do. But East is deleting the talk page of redirects, not the redirects themselves. seresin ( ¡? ) 03:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. He is (or was) deleting talk pages that have become redirects. I admit this is confusing, so will post a quick guide to terminology below. Carcharoth (talk) 03:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I think we're talking at crossed purposes here. The problem is that these talkpages (whether presently redirects or not) may contain useful material that should be moved/merged to the correct place - that automated deletion is inappropriate and that human review should have taken place. WjBscribe 03:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, no talk page content got deleted. These all seem to be redirects created by pagemoves, rather than redirects created by blanking the page and inserting the redirect markup, thus the content end up at the new destination. What did get lost was the information linking the old title to the new one - what we call a redirect. Carcharoth (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. It is taking me a little time to catch up - I've been tracking a few related issues... WjBscribe

there seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding... your bot deletes only broken redirects, not useless ones. 195.242.221.60 (talk) 02:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have forgotten to log into your account... WjBscribe 03:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No-one has bothered to comment on the specific examples I provided earlier. Maybe you would like to comment on them? They are not the best examples, and it is rather difficult to find good examples when clicking at random among 10,000 redirects, but I would point out that around 10 of the redirects have already been restored or otherwise turned 'blue' again, for various reasons. I posted these to East's talk page, but I think it will be useful to post them here as well:

• Talk:Axis powers talk page reconnected with its page
• Talk:IKEA Ampere Way tram stop moved and then moved back
• Talk:Hetmans of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth you restored this one
• Talk:Grand Duchy of Lithuania talk page reconnected with its redirect
• Talk:Fort William, Highland you got someone very confused
• Talk:Father Divine moved back over redirect
• Talk:Brookfield High School (Ottawa) article moved back over redirect
• Talk:Bleimor (Breton Scouting organization) restored by another admin
• Talk:Ajax (automobile) strange...
• Talk:Kiev tumbler recreated followed by me doing this

Some of these were correct, but some are debatable. The point is that no debate took place. Carcharoth (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Summary (so far)

I think this is an accurate and fair summary, please correct anything I get wrong.

• Various admin bots exist, and are operated by various admins to clean up various areas of the encyclopedia where admins tools are needed, usually areas that are too mundane for mere humans to bother with. The existence of admin bots is to some an open secret. To others it is a surprise.
• User:Misza13 has written and openly published the code for several of these admin bots.
• Others also use the code published by Misza13, such as (it seem) in this case, by User:East718.
• Following the example set by previous deletion runs (I'm not sure of the date or extent of these), East718, using a list obtained from a toolserver request, initiated a run of deletions of talk page redirects using the adminbot code. Most of these talk page redirects appear to have been created following the move of a page and its associated talk page. The edit summary used was: "orphaned redirect talk page (x days old)" (where x was presumably how old it was). These orphaned talk page redirects should not be confused with orphaned redirects (that is dealt with by User:RedirectCleanupBot) or 'orphaned' talk pages (a sloppy but common way to refer to WP:CSD#G8 deletions of talk pages without an associated page).
• Between 03:22 and 12:57, 13 April 2008, East718 deleted around 10,213 such redirects (the total on the list was apparently around 35,000 but he stopped before the list was complete). The list can be seen at the following log links in reverse order (warning, pages may load slowly): first 5000; second 5000, last 213). This list includes various image deletions as well, and a run of deletions and restorations where the bot seems to have made a mistake and self-corrected? There are also currently 10 talk pages that are blue links - I'll take those to East718's talk page.
• Exact details are not clear because I don't have a clue how to interpret the bot code, but it seems that various checks were carried out to see whether the redirects are suitable for deletion. One of these was to check for incoming links (backlinks, which can be seen by using "what links here"). An "orphaned" redirect is one that has no incoming links
• However, many such incoming links are to manually or (more commonly) bot-generated article lists or logs (WatchListBot and the WP 1.0 Bot). These lists are usually placed in either the Wikipedia namespace, or the User namespace. When writing or updating the code, Misza13 decided (with some justification) that these links were not sufficient reason to keep the redirects, and that other links from these two namespaces were too few to worry about. It now turns out that others disagree, but, because this was an admin bot, it was not discussed widely enough for this sort of counter-opinion to be expressed.
• During East718's latest maintenance run, these deletions suddenly started appearing on people's watchlists, as can be seen by the responses on his talk page. This is because the developers recently changed the software so that deletions show up on people's watchlists.
• I asked East718 to stop the bot to allow discussion. Hesperian started the ANI thread. This is the result so far, with opinion divided (as far as I can tell), and people arguing over what exactly has been going on.

What needs to happen next (if anything)? The two main questions that need answering concern: (1) how to handle the redirects in future and what to do with the deleted redirects; (2) whether admin bots need to be more widely discussed to avoid issues like this in future? My views should be clear so far, including my prediction that now deletions show up on watchlists, the actions of adminbots will be subjected to more scrutiny than in the past, but I'm going to step back now and let others say stuff. Carcharoth (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry to be a pain, but I've not come across this before. What's the 'list'? Could anyone link me to it (if applicable). Thank you. Regards, Rudget (review) 20:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• The clearest explanation seems to be here:

  "Hi, Mrg3105! I'm using a robot to delete these pages; 35000 deletions straight probably wouldn't be too good for my mental health. :-) Thanks for the heads-up anyway. [...] First, I had a friend with access to the toolserver generate a list of all redirect talk pages for me. When I run the bot, it systematically goes through the list of pages, testing each to see whether it has no history, no incoming links, and is more than a week old. If all of these criteria are met, the page gets deleted, otherwise, nothing happens." - User:East718 - 12:33, 13 April 2008

  It was this open admission of using an admin bot (which I'm not opposed to in principle - it is doing tasks without discussion that I oppose) that attracted Hesperian's attention and led him to eventually (after some talk page discussion) to say he was moving it to ANI, which he did here. Getting lists from toolserver queries is not controversial. Doing redirects deletions like this is (and should have been in the past as well, if anyone had spotted it back then). But it looks like most people are too busy discussing the Tango-MONGO drama above to care much about this. Carcharoth (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Ugh

East is clearly in the wrong here. If this were Betacommand, this thread would be ten times longer. The fact of the matter is, admins have to follow policies and procedures, just like everyone else. They don't get to ignore them because they find them inconvenient.

Turn off the bot, submit it to the BAC folks, and then if they approve it for the tasks you want, turn it back on. That's how the rest of us peons have to do it and that's how you have to do it too. Jtrainor (talk) 01:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The impression I am getting is that there are quite high volumes of such deletion (or other maintenance) runs, and most of them are fine because they don't appear to cause any problems or objections. When they do, though, or they become more visible because of changes in the way watchlists work (unsurprisingly, people don't actually hover over Special:Log/delete - though maybe that might not have been such a bad idea in the past), then people do raise objections. What I do feel the bot operating community need to do is get a handle on admin bots, and for admin bot operators and their supporters not to react so defensively. It is exactly the same reaction as seen with Betacommand, though East, to be fair, has generally been much more responsive to questions. It is indisputable that, with the volume of mundane maintenance required, admin bots are needed to do this work. But, as with ANY bot operation, there is a need to change and adapt to the wishes of the community, rather than using bots to force a default result. That may not be the intention, but it is rare for people to be bothered to contest borderline cases, and so bit-by-bit admin bot operation seems to have expanded its role, and inevitably this will lead to questions and objections. What is not acceptable is to try and suppress or divert such discussions with the cry of "we can't discuss admin bots because the community will reject them". I stand by my claim that with deletions more visible on watchlists, we will see more threads like this unless the bot operating community actually bring admin bots within the bot policy and begin to set limits and oversee open on-wiki discussions about them. At the same time, the wider community should probably try, once again, to get the issue of admin bots settled once and for all. It is not helpful to have them being "open secrets". User:RedirectCleanupBot managed it. Some of the more mundane admin tasks could similarly succeed as well. Carcharoth (talk) 02:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I am also concerned by the situation here. About a month ago I asked East718 privately to stop the automated deletion of redirects. I felt that the community's views on the RedirectCleanupBot RfA were clear as to the circumstances in which redirects were to be deleted. East718's script in my opinion deletes redirects which should be evaluated by hand. WjBscribe 02:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There are only limited times fully automated bots should be used, especially with admin rights. This isn't one of them, imo. It should go to RfA really, if anything. And I supported the RCB RfA because it's a bot that really can't go wrong at all. This one can, and has done. Majorly (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Now would be an excellent time for East718 to state that they will not run the script again without community approval. This is not a situation where WP:IAR can be applied, because there was a long and thorough discussion of what would be needed to run a redirect deletion bot. That consensus was fairly recent and needs to be respected. If necessary, we can have another RFA for a new bot. Jehochman ^Talk 02:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is not limited to East718. MZMcBride runs a similar script for genuinely internally-orphaned redirects (though this doesn't avoid the issue that links from outside will break). There are many admin bot scripts running, and I saw a comment somewhere that Misza13 has written the script for many of them. The sources are publically available. Some quotes from elsewhere in this thread: "Misza13 created a bunch of bots. They're open source. Other admins use them...", "Many other admins run adminbots (MZMcBride, DerHexer, Quadell, Misza13), to name a few. I don't officially run an adminbot, as javascript isn't considered to be a bot, for all intents and purposes, it is one. It's never been bureaucratically approved or anything". So this needs a much wider discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

As a member of the bot approvals group, I must state unequivocally that all bots must be approved by the proper process, which is that way. I am disappointed that this is not the first time east718 has abused an unapproved bot for what he considered a case of ignore all rules, but actually ended up requiring half an hour of developer time to fix up the mess he made. [124] Might I suggest that we have an approvals mechanism for bots for a good reason, and, in both situations, east718 has circumvented this approvals mechanism, and, consequently, caused damage to the encyclopedia.

I recognise that there are issues in approving adminbots because some people have silly ideas about them, but a culture of quietly running them, and turning a blind eye to them is not the way to resolve these issues, and probably serve to detriment the cause of adminbots. — Werdna talk 03:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Werdna makes a good point - this is not an isolated incident of misjudgment on east718's part (yet another springs easily to mind [125]). East's mistakes are starting to outnumber his correct decisions... WjBscribe 03:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna go with Werdna here, as another member of the bot approvals group. If this had been an unapproved editing bot, making 10,000+ edits in 8 hours (about 20epm), it probably would have been blocked long ago. The delete and block buttons have the potential to be far more destructive than the edit button, and far harder to clean up in such massive numbers. Performance wise, a deletion "costs" a lot more than an edit. Adminbots should, in my opinion, need to be at least documented, and discussed with the community. SQL^{Query me!} 11:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Werdna, Majorly, SQL and WJBScribe. The approval process exists for a reason. I don't think these redirects ought to be deleted in the first place, and I'm not seeing the process for cleaning mistakes up (one of my beefs with bots, especially unauthorised bots, is that their operators tend not to clean up the messes made) when discovered. ++Lar: t/c 14:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll be blunt. I don't see the problem with what he's doing. Seems like maintenance to me. If the redirects aren't needed, then they're not needed. If he touched mainspace to mainspace redirects, that's one thing. But he just got rid of talk page clutter that is never needed and was never going to be useful. If there were problems, then let's try and fix them in order to be able to do what he did more effectively rather than bashing him unjustifiably. Wizardman 03:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What was on the talk page was moved to the new location when the pagemove took place. Thus what is being deleted here is not what was on the talk page, but the redirect. In other words, this is "redirect clutter", not "talk page clutter". Whether orphaned redirects should be deleted is a matter for WP:RFD, and is not covered by WP:CSD. That is long-standing practice, and it is increasingly clear that some admins did an end-run around that. Maybe with the best of intentions, but still an end-run around redirect deletion policy. Carcharoth (talk) 03:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

So, the right thing to do would've been to bombard RfD with this orphaned redirects? It is a run around it, but with the sheer number of ones to be dealt with I can see why they did so. Wizardman 03:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The right thing would have been to leave them alone. Redirects are cheap and I've yet to see a convincing argument that they were causing any harm. 35,000 versus 2,500,000? Maybe someone could give figures for the total number of redirects we have, and whether deleting 35,000 of them really would have helped. In the end, only 10,000 or so got deleted, but tens of thousands were deleted previously. Carcharoth (talk) 03:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

True, the redirects weren't harmful, yet them being "cheap" isn't necessarily a reason to keep them. If no one's going to see them, then why have them? Wizardman 04:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Good. We are getting somewhere. Now, where is the right place to discuss this? WP:RfD, WT:CSD or a discussion within a small group of bot operators? Carcharoth (talk) 04:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Tough to say. Could an extra CSD criterion be added for instances such as this? Would such an option be a problem? That would be a good discussion to have, I think. Wizardman 04:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There are presently 1,857,524 redirects, according to the toolserver, whomever asked. SQL^{Query me!} 11:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how purportedly useful the bot is. The facts are, East has no authority to run it and hasn't submitted it to BAC for approval, as is required. The policies are really quite clear on this. "It's useful" or "It doesn't seem to be doing anything harmful" are not valid reasons to ignore the rules we all have to follow. My concern is with the violation of process more than with what the bot itself is doing. Jtrainor (talk) 06:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Terminology confusion

Some people are getting very confused over terminology, so a quick refresher might be in order:

• (1) "Orphaned" talk pages (CSD#G8) are talk pages where the corresponding page does not exist or was deleted. This is an imprecise use of the phrase "orphaned".
• (2) Broken redirects are redirects pointing at deleted or never-created titles. Sometimes these are called "orphaned" redirects. As for type (1), this is an imprecise use of the phrase "orphaned". User:RedirectCleanupBot deals with these providing they have no edit history beyond creation (see type C).
• (3) True orphaned pages are pages not linked to from anywhere else (ie. "what links here" shows nothing). This usually refers to articles not linked from other articles, but can refer to other namespace pages as well. These links from somewhere else are also called backlinks. Redirects can be orphaned in this sense (looking backwards at what connects to it) as well as in the other sense (looking forward at what it connects to, though this is more commonly called a "broken redirect").
  • (3a) Sometimes orphan status can be delimited by namespace. Thus it is possible for a page to be orphaned with respect to several namespaces, but still be linked from other namespaces. This is relevant here because some namespaces (in this case Wikipedia and User namespaces) are densely populated with links from article lists, such as the various bot-generated watchlists, wikiproject article lists, user lists, and the WP 1.0 assessment lists.

Also, redirects can be created in several ways and have a varied history.

• (A) Redirects can be created from scratch. These generally never have a talk page, and the edit history usually only shows creation, but in theory a talk page could be created for such redirects.
• (B) Redirects are created by the pagemove function. If the page has a talk page and the talk page is also moved, a redirect is created for the talk page as well. The edit history will only show creation of the redirect at the time of the page move.
• (C) Redirects can also be created by blanking a page and inserting the redirect markup. This is known as "redirecting" and is also a step seen in merging. This can also work the other way round, with a redirect being turned into a normal page, usually when undoing a merge, creating a disambiguation page following a page move, or just creating new content where previously only a redirect existed. These redirects are easily distinguished from others because they have an edit history that is more than just the creation of the redirect. When talk pages exist for these type of redirects, they are sometimes left alone, and sometimes redirected or merged to the talk page of the redirect destination.

Thus you can have a talk page for a created redirect, a pagemove talk page redirect, and either of these types can be orphaned or broken, and talk pages, as always, can lack the corresponding page. I think that covers the basics. Carcharoth (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• So which one was he deleting? Q ^{T C} 03:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• A variant of Type 3a-B. Carcharoth (talk) 03:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that A and C should generally not be done in "talk" namespaces except for obvious shortcuts such as WT:RFA or maybe Talk:USPS to Talk:United States Postal Service would be reasonable but the red link and the emptiness of the deletion log suggests that this isn't often done deliberately. — CharlotteWebb 14:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps "widowed talk page" would be a better name for type 1. Bovlb (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot or no bot, why were these being deleted?

See #Mass deletion outside of RfD or CSD. In all the talk about an admin bot, we seem to have overlooked something.. the deletion itself. -- Ned Scott 03:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree the deletions are really the topic of interest. If an admin makes a list of pages and then uses an automated tool to avoid clicking 'delete' a thousand times, that isn't a "bot" in the ordinary sense of the word, it's just a loop around a deletion button. Bot approval would only be needed for scripts that edit in an ongoing way and make decisions on their own.

I find myself very neutral about the deletions. On one hand, I don't see any strong argument for keeping these redirects (I have both read the above conversation and thought about it myself). On the other hand, I don't see a real need to delete them, although I understand the desire to keep things tidy. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the opposite is true. I opened this thread to get community input on whether it has now become acceptable for admins to run unauthorised adminbots on their account; but the bulk of the discussion has been about whether we like what the adminbot was doing. Hesperian 04:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been convinced by the comments of primarily Carcharoth that these deletions are not all appropriate. I notice that MZMcBride is making similar ones. Aleta ^Sing 04:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

So, if I make a list of pages, and use an automated tool to avoid clicking 'save page' a thousand times, that wouldn't be a bot either right? It's really just a loop around the edit button. IMO, if you're performing an action at a high rate of speed, without looking at the current content of the page you are performing the action on, you are running a bot, at least as I know it. SQL^{Query me!} 11:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've left him another message. Carcharoth (talk) 04:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

He replied at my talk page and wants to discuss it there instead of here. Carcharoth (talk) 05:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That might be my fault. It was my impression that people were saying (at least at first) that "there's nothing wrong with admin bots", and were not focusing on whether the deletions were appropriate. I agree the two issues (admin bots vs the deletions) should have been separated. I apologise for that, and would suggest trying to separate the debates or restarting them away from ANI. Carcharoth (talk) 04:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the proper purpose of the talk page of a redirect would be to discuss issues regarding the redirect. Let's suppose that due to some (possibly long-forgotten) page-move, "A" redirects to "B" and "Talk:A" redirects to "Talk:B". If somebody wanted to say "Maybe A should redirect to C instead, what do you think? ~~~~" they would probably post it at "Talk:A", thereby removing (or otherwise breaking) the "#REDIRECT [[Talk:B]]" code, seriously. Deleting (or at least blanking) the talk-page redirect saves such commenters the one step of clicking on the "redirected from Talk:A" link to get to the "title=Talk:A&redirect=no" address before editing. Arguably not really worth the trouble of doing this en masse due to the sub-triviality of it all, and definitely not worth undoing. — CharlotteWebb 14:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What is this about??

There are so many issues being discussed in parallel here, this whole section is almost worthless, because no one knows who is talking about what and many of the discussions don't belong here. As far as I can tell, there are at least 4 issues here, only one of which is really appropriate for this board.

Adminbots in general

This is a discussion for a different board, one more suited to long term discussions.

Deleting redirects

Again, far too broad for this board to address. The general topic of deleting redirects is not an incident requiring immediate admin attention.

East718's adminbot

As much as I hate the user-conduct-RFC format, its still better than this mess for discussing long-term issues with a user.

East718 deleting redirects

This is really the only topic I can identify that is appropriate for this board and for a short-term discussion.

If we want to get anything remotely close to a resolution, can we stick to discussing things that can actually be resolved here? Mr.Z-man 16:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Vonita

He canvassed once.[126] I warned him to stop it.[127] He blanked it.[128]

He sent me an attacking message "You are a page blanking vandal. That is all you are and all you ever will be." But what disturbs me the most is that a user who has not made even 50 edits yet tells me to read WP:MOS.[129] I find it futile to warn him again as he has blanked one. Ultra! 14:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, it is she not he. Secondly, I am taking my time to read all Wikipedia policies before I make substantive edits. It's a pity he does not since he manages to annoy. It is deplorable that he comes running to WP:ANI. As for the comment about him being a Page Blanking Vandal, that is a true statement of fact. Look here [noticeboard/IncidentArchive246#Vikrant Phadkay]. He has been blocked twice from Wikipedia for being a page blanking vandal. That all came out in his humilliating attempt to become a Wikipedia Admin. Read the RfA to see how united people were against his application. It was not canvassing to inform User:Maddyfan about this [for adminship/Vikrant Phadkay]. Note the comments made by User:hbdragon88 about Vikrant Phadkay's outbursts of temper and acts of vandalism that led him twice to being blocked from Wikipedia. (he changed his screen name to Ultraviolet scissor flame). Maddyfan at that point was in dispute with him and had warned him about being blocked again. Look here User talk:Ultraviolet scissor flame/Archive 3#Madonna. I warned Vikrant Phadkay not to leave rude messages on my Talk Page again as did user:emerson 7, look here User talk:Ultraviolet scissor flame/Archive 4#i have been warned?. He was the one who first left an attack message on my page, on 3 March 2008 [130], and I only replied when I logged on Wikipedia again on 7 April 2008 - more than a month later. As for "blanking", he removed my message from his talk page and it was only afterwards that I removed his message from mine. You will see he removed my message at 23.12, 7 April 2008 [131] and I removed his message from my Talk Page at 07.48, 8 April 2008 - the morning after. [132].

Look at his Talk Page User talk:Ultraviolet scissor flame/Archive 4 to see how many warnings he has received from other editors and how many photos, he uploaded, have been deleted from Wikipedia because of copyright violations. As there is no basis for his complaint against me, other than his hurt feelings, I hope you will dismiss this "incident". I hope you will tell him that if he is nice to others then others will be nice to him and if he is rude to others then others will be rude to him. That is how life is.

Vonita (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Other incidents have already been dealt with. Can a Wikipedia Admin just deal with this "incident", I have replied in great depth.

Thanks,

Vonita (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

(moved from section posted at end of page)

Can a Wikipedia Admin just deal with this please and close it ? Incidents, that were listed later, have already been dealt with and closed. Nothing like this has ever happened to me before. It is very stressful.

Vonita (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I will have a look and see what I can do. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have looked through, and am uncertain exactly what it is that you want "closed". Is it this section? If it is, then it appears that there is nothing to be done here and the section will be archived in due course. Adding a resolved box to the top, much like me responding here, simply means that the bot will archive it later rather than sooner. It may then be best to allow this to be archived, and we all move on. If it is another matter, I should be grateful if you could provide a link and/or diff so I (or others) can investigate further. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Vonita, you still continue to use the word vandal. Ultra! 15:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

ESCStudent774441 and legal threats

Yesterday I blocked ESCStudent774441 (talk · contribs) for legal threats. He was blocked in the past for disruptions including accusing people of taking away his "legal rights to free speech" (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive389#ESCStudent774441). I just received an email from him (that I will happily provide to whoever) saying that he will not seek unblock "within" Wikipedia but that he will appeal to a legal system to have them reserve my block (through court order) and have the court enjoin me and everyone else from blocking him in the future. Do I just ignore this kind of behavior? Do I pass it on to anyone in the Foundation? Metros (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You could pass it on to Mike Godwin, the foundation's legal counsel, but I don't know what he would do with it. Hut 8.5 17:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion over at WP:NLT emphasized that such incidents are channeled through the Foundation. However, it is normally the one who issues the threat as needing to channel the threat. If he follows through with the threat, he would need to contact Wikimedia to find out who you are, so they will find out eventually. However, I doubt that will be the case. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No, let him do his thing. He has no legal basis for that request anyway, but if he wants to punt his head into a brick wall, he's more than welcome to email OTRS. I'm tweaking the block to prevent email (if it hasn't already been done)⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I would pass it onto Godwin just so he is aware in case anything ever does come of it, and then ignore the user. KnightLago (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

We can't pass every single worthless legal threat on to him, otherwise he'd be overwhelmed. That's what we have a legal-en queue on OTRS for. Especially when there's no actual suit either, or an official letter from an attorney. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, then send it to OTRS, I was just saying send it to someone related to the foundation so they have it. KnightLago (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:RBI... He's not taking this to court. Really, he's not. He's just puffing and being a general PITA... Block email access and move on... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Not in the least bit surprised. He will be sorely missed by almost nobody. Guy (Help!) 20:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Those who feel an "I told you so" directed to me is appropriate are now free to do so :) ++Lar: t/c 18:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for more eyes

Resolved

 – While I'm still not thrilled with/understanding the accusations, the passage has been changed, so the issue has been avoided. Dispute is moot. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Can some un-involved admins help (perhaps explain what I am missing) over at Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and it's talk page. I'm being accused of Point of View violations, but I am lost. Assistance would be greatly appreciated... even if it means telling me I'm wrong (with a better explanation). Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Holy shit, that's possibly the worst article I've ever seen in terms of blatant POV violations (not referring to your edits, I'm referring to whatever the version I just viewed 5 minutes ago was). ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Which specific parts do you have a problem with? FeloniousMonk (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I was called to take a look at this article over concerns by a number of others about what appeared to be tag teaming and POV promotion by Ali'i and Ferrylodge. In my view Ali'i has been ignoring consensus and edit warring to promote the intelligent design POV and then rules lawyering over quoting the source when his reverts don't stick. This taken with what appears to be a POV campaign to whitewash the article, I've informed him there that 3 reverts in 30 minutes while ignoring consensus and POV deletions are likely to be seen as disruptive editing per WP:DE. Add to that now campaigning to drive away productive contributors through forum shopping, and now you have the complete picture. FeloniousMonk (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Not forum shopping... this is the only place I asked for more eyes. I am not tag teaming with anyone... I disliked Ferrylodge's edit as much as the others. If you look at my edits and see me trying to "whitewash" towards a certain point of view (especially the pro-intelligent design view), then I have no idea what is going on. I didn't come here asking for back up (in fact, if I was wrong, then I requested uninvolved admins to assist me in understanding how I was violating our core principles). Rules lawyering is trying to have a quote state what was actually said??? Now I think I've heard everything. --Ali'i 19:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You do seem to be edit warring, I suggest you hold off on any further back and forth. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Trust me... I'm done. I was only trying to copyedit an article and now I've been accused of neutrality violations, personal attacks, tag-team editing, forum shopping, driving other editors away from Wikipedia, and disruptive editing. I'm wary to get back into that article now. --Ali'i 19:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It appeared to me that Ali'i's revert warring was solely to correct a misquotation, that others kept reinserting. It shouldn't have amounted to a revert war, but I'm not sure Ali'i is at all to blame. Otherwise I tend to agree with Swatjester and Relata refero, that the article has significant problems, and that this persists largely because of incivility on the page. Mackan79 (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The primary source looks a bit unreliable either way, as has been pointed out here and on the talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I think that was decided afterwards, however. In replacing it, some appeared to argue that changing the quote was ok as long as it was generally representative. I think possibly several people just weren't aware it was actually placed in quotes. Mackan79 (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

And were less likely to notice, maybe, because of all the incivility and edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've never seen it help to argue that something could be considered vandalism, to the extent that was a part of it. Mackan79 (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• I gave up on Expelled long ago, the subject of the article is something that would be laughed out by any rational audience and the whole history of the article has been of ever-increasing bloat as the warring factions try to gain an advantage by having more of their sources quoted. I also find it offensive that blatant propaganda like this and "what the bleep" is called "documentary". I would call Michael Moore's films satire, and these propaganda, but neither is a documentary as I would understand it. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The problematic section was introduced in a worthy effort to cut down on the bloat and streamline the structure, but unfortunately it introduced a situation where the views of the film producers and their backers were reported uncritically with the context of third party analysis being separated away to later in the section. Ali'i made a good point in that the film producers' statement could not be sourced by the link given, the continually changing news page of the promotional website. Whether the statement had changed on that site or had been modified when inserted in the WP article is unclear, but to me that reflects an underlying problem of an unreliable primary source being used rather than reliable outside expert opinion. .. dave souza, talk 20:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'd love to help, but the constant incivility from all sides in that environment has driven me and editors like me away. No, wait, apparently that never happens, at least when we're discussing whether to enforce WP:CIVIL when people are fighting off trolls. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think you've mis-identified the problem. The problem is the trolls, and the need to fight them off al the time, plus the long-term trench warfare on some articles. Take away the trolls and the trenches and I don't think there would be a "civility problem". Guy (Help!) 22:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Guy, I think I can identify the reason why I am not editing an article, thanks. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• My point is that I believe you are confusing cause and effect. Guy (Help!) 11:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• No. The cause is incivility (block threats, accusations of disruption, etc.) of the type Ali'i describes; the effect is I'm not going to edit there and fix the problems SwatJester describes. The cause is our firm belief that our articles must remain free of pseudoscience; the effect is that extraordinary soapboxing and viciousnes is permitted by those we believe are doing that. Neither cause needs to lead to the corresponding effect, but they do. We need to fix this. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - is a controversial documentary film and It is due to be released on April 18, 2008. This page is 109 kilobytes long. There are 146 footnotes and the film has not been released yet. [133] --Newbyguesses (talk) 05:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is a truly awful POV screed. I tried editing it some months ago, but was forced to withdraw after being reverted and heavily criticised on the talk page. Comparatively little of the article is even about the film; it's just basically one long anti-intelligent design rant.

I am a little fed up with the way articles on the evolutionism-creationism controversy are treated. The fact is that there is a genuine controversy, and as an encyclopedia committed to the goal of NPOV, we should not paint one side of the controversy as undisputed scientific fact and the other as pseudoscience. And an article on a film should be about the film, presenting the facts and giving all points of view in a balanced way. It does not need to be a detailed discussion of the film's topic, and it should not be a detailed scientific rebuttal of every claim made in the film, or an attempt to discredit intelligent design. The article really needs to be stubified and restarted from scratch, and it should be nowhere near its current length.

I am not a scientist, and I'm not the best person to deal with this topic. But I think we need to have a sensible discussion about this. We need to stop automatically labelling creationist editors as trolls, and we need to stop making block threats. Walton^One 12:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Not all creationist editors are trolls, of course. However, the "controversy" should not be permitted to permeate into our science-related articles. That there is a "controversy" is a political artefact, and should be treated neutrally as such. To say that this is a science-related article is a bit much. Its an article about a polemical film, and needs to be treated on par with all other such. As Moreschi says about What the Bleep's problems, what we are faced with here is a category error. Which is, of course, ironic. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact is, one side of the controversy is undisputed scientific fact and the other side pseudoscience. The scientists have spoken definitively on the matter; when asking about the history of life from a scientific perspective, Reliable Sources agree on evolution.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

So we've killed linux

Resolved

 – User was blocked indef for threatening to out users identities, article is undergoing AfD. I think this is settled. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Or a distribution at least. Zomg, hyperbole, i know. Check out http://www.myah.org/, I noticed it when cleaning up a rather lengthy rant against wikipedia on the Myah OS article, and noticed that a few searches establish notability, but no references are cited and the editor/principal contributor to the article, who is also Myah's creator, states that he finds it absurd (or similiar, im quoting from memory) that he has to find other sources for things he knows. I'm going to spend a while fixing the article up, but as the notice on the site linked strikes me like the rant about wikipedia the overstock.com guy had on some of his checkout pages last fall, thought I'd throw it up here. -M^ask? 21:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Everytime you ask for a reliable source, a cute penguin logo cries. This OS seems barely notable, but I think it's worth an article. I'll pitch in. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Beta software that's no longer being developed? The Myah forum has 152 registered users. Dan Beale-Cocks 21:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

ehh, 32k hits for "Myah OS" -wikipedia plus some attention on XFCE's website make me think this might have a chance. -M^ask? 21:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. It might be an idea to scrape as much as possible from the Google cache of the site if he really is halting development. OF the 48k G hits I got about 5.5k from the myah forum. I'm not a deletionist, but it does seem weird that a beta software (that doesn't seem to have any unique features) with 150 registered forum users gets an article when 20th century Olympic athletes get BALEETED. Dan Beale-Cocks 10:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

For further understanding, so to speak, if you haven't done, take a look at the self-identified developer's many comments (and 3rr block yesterday) on the article's and his talk pages. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, yes. I've just done that. Comments like (paraphrased) 'you quote a source that I wrote, for an old verion, and it's wrong, so stop using it' will make getting any kind of sensible article very hard. I've just put some friendly welcome text on the users talk page but I don't know if it'll make any difference at all. (There is that whole 'ECONOMIST - new editors quickly hit confusing policies' thing.) Dan Beale-Cocks 10:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes and I truly think he doesn't think it's worth understanding what we try to explain to him because he has a notion he'll edit the article as he thinks he "must," rather than through Wikipedia policies (he often characterizes Wikipedia as being run by "kids" who like pushing others around by posting "lies" about his OS and so on). Gwen Gale (talk) 11:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This summary looks pretty much accurate. Basically, the article created, then the creator of this distribution began editing it, and removing sourcing tags. This persisted for quite some time, with a slow-motion edit war over the unsourced statements and whether the current version was "outdated". At one point, he just gave up and began trying to get it deleted citing "harassment" and the fact that it contains false information. It seems borderline non-notable, and I lean toward deleting. --Haemo (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's borderline. I'm having a go, don't know how it will come out though. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, nifty little distro but scant evidence of any user base and the developer does seem to have been trying to use the article as a promotional tool. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"The Myah OS project has been halted due to continual harassment by wikipeda." Seriously? Even assuming that Wikipedia was capable of harassing a project, you've got problems if you can't stand criticism. I won't comment on the article itself, but the statement on the Myah OS web page makes the guy behind it look a little thin-skinned. --clpo13_(talk) 08:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myah OS. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Jeremiah Cheatham

Meanwhile he's telling us all where to go and kinda threatening to reveal editor identities. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think an indefinite block is needed for that. Threating to reveal identities is a strong concern for those here on en.wp. Rudget (review) 15:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh ya, for sure. In fact, in order to prevent the user from making good on his threat I have blocked him indef and protected his talk page. We can't tolerate that type of intimidation and potential instigation of harassment. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Chaldean and his anti syriacs campaign.

Hi, User:Chaldean keeps vandalize articles, that not suits him. For example: [of the Syriac people&diff=205380283&oldid=205380144]. He first blanked the page then he blanked it again after revert from admin HalfShadow . He runs an assyrian propaganda and thinks that all people are assyrians. the syriacs are an ethnic group with different history, langague, culture etc. The history of the syriac people is way different with the history of the assyrian people. he removes population numbers like this one [people&diff=205325810&oldid=205325601] beacuse he thinks that the source is not realiable. instead of that, he could just place a tag. he also removed in article Aramaic language links and informatoin who speaks the aramean language > [language&diff=205330081&oldid=205329537]. In the article the sentence were Modern Aramaic is spoken today as a first language by numerous, scattered communities, most significantly by Assyrians, Syriacs, and Chaldeans. That sentence was written for a long time until Chaldean came with his assyrian propaganda and removed Syriacs, and Chaldeans from that sentence because it does not fit him. There are more syriacs than assyrians that talks the language neo aramaic, but user Chaldean does not care about that. He also made a threat against me, to bring in a person that could "blow up" the article Syriac people > [talk:VegardNorman&diff=next&oldid=205331812]. He thinks that all people are assyrians and chainging what the sources says. Look at this edit [Assyrians&diff=205334796&oldid=205334488]. The source said 18.500 assyrians. but user Chaldean thinks that also iraqi christians are assyrians. The iraqi christians is iraqis and christians, not assyrians. He also removed the "3RR" template in his discussion, maybe he wants to hide the proof that he are breaking the three-revert rule [talk:Chaldean&diff=205437126&oldid=205436313]. How can we stop this assyrian propaganda? VegardNorman (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. I also have no interest in the subject matter at all; I was simply reverting an 'incorrect' edit (blanking the page as opposed to creating a redirect or whatever). HalfShadow (talk) 22:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

. the syriacs are an ethnic group with different history, langague, culture etc - right you claim this when you have admit at your own talk page that you are just starting to read on the subject. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac), we have agreed that Assyrian is the most common used refence in the English language to define this group. Chaldean (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"In the article the sentence were Modern Aramaic is spoken today as a first language by numeros, scattered communities, most significantly by Assyrians, Syriacs, and Chaldeans. That sentence was written for a long: - you added that in March. As agreed at the Wikipedia:Assyrian-Syriac wikipedia cooperation board, we will not drag politics in all other pages, except desribe the issue in the Assyrian naming dispute page. Chaldean (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"Look at this edit 168. The source said 18.500 assyrians. but user Chaldean thinks that also iraqi christians are assyrians." - that is the general acceptance. 95% of Iraqi Christians are Assyrian, with 5% Armenian. Armenians declare Armenian in the census because they don't have a naming issue. "Iraqi Christian" is what some Chaldean Christians prefer instead of Assyrian, but that doesn't change their ethnicity. Chaldean (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"" when you have admit at your own talk page that you are just starting to read on the subject "" .. no i did not say that, ive just started to read new books. i have read alot of books . "" we have agreed that Assyrian is the most common... "".. We? YOU are the only one that has agreed, not me or any other user like "the triz"," benne" etc. " that is the general acceptance. 95% of Iraqi Christians are Assyrian, ".. User:Chaldean, trust me i have ALOT of iraqi christian friends and NONE of them call them self for assyrian or that their are descnendats to assyrians. they are iraqis, not assyrian. that just prooves how much you want to assyrianiate everyone with your assyrian propaganda. VegardNorman (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the issue to WP:FT. Chaldean (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

For those looking ,here's the actual link Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Syriac_people_and_newly_created_pages_by_the_minute, with an entirely different presentation of the dispute. ThuranX (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No the issue is not moved. The issue stays here because i have complaints on a user, not about an article. VegardNorman (talk) 09:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

{exdent for convenience] User:VegardNorman has attempted to enlist my interest in this matter on my talk page, which I think may fall under the rules about "trolling" to enlist support. At any rate, I have no interest in adjudicating this matter or even offering an opinion, which seems to be being handled by competent individuals having a rational discussion here and elsewhere. I have no idea why User:VegardNorman thought I might want to weigh in on this issue since it is entirely outside any area of competence I might possess and, to the best of my knowledge, I've never encountered any of the participants before. Good luck with resolving this issue and, if there's anything within my limited realm of competence with which I can assist, let me know. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Since no admin answered on this issue i contacted an administrator. I checked the list for administrators and just picked out you. Im not in any interest that you join my "side". VegardNorman (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I recognize that to be the case. You may wish to look at the Wikipedia policy at Wikipedia:Canvassing for future reference, although I don't suggest you have infringed it. Thanks for your clarification. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Mass deletion outside of RfD or CSD

Something just doesn't sit right with me on this. Apparently we have some admins who are mass deleting "orphaned talk page redirects", for some unknown reason, and without a CSD or an RfD. [134] [135]. One of the big reasons we have RfD is because there are often incoming links on other websites that use these redirects, and there are probably other reasons why this shouldn't be done. So why is such a mass deletion (no matter how minor some might see it as) happening? Some of these talk pages once contained content, even if it was something as simple as a WikiProject rating, or a couple of comments. -- Ned Scott 02:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed some of these deletions. I agree it seems like a bad idea. Aleta ^Sing 02:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a massive discussion going on above on this page Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

ok, i think i can clear some of this up seeing as how i used to work with redirects (apologies for the ip, but i locked myself out of my account in 2007). it appears that none of these talk pages ever had any content at any point, so that's not in the wrong... your point about external links seems to be a good one. 195.242.221.60 (talk) 02:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be at least one mistaken deletion noted at User talk:MZMcBride#Sydney Suburb talk page deleted, and I'm 90% sure that at least some of them did contain some content other than a redirect edit. -- Ned Scott 03:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The talk page noted in that thread had no history other than a redirect from a page move in January and has no incoming links. Mr.Z-man 04:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. MZMcBride's deletions are also a lot slower. I presume he is manually reviewing them. The activity is ongoing, so I will drop him another talk page message. Carcharoth (talk) 04:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

He replied at my talk page and wants to discuss it there instead of here. Carcharoth (talk) 05:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There is also a thread about this further up the page. Might be an idea to merge them. I've randomly checked some of the deletions by MZMcBride (someone should tell him about these threads), and he seems to be using a different script, as unlike East718's deletions, they are genuinely orphaned in all namespaces (East's script ignored backlinks from Wikipedia and User namespaces). Carcharoth (talk) 02:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The thread above seems to be more about an admin-bot issue, rather than the deletion itself, so I'm not sure about that. -- Ned Scott 03:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Note left for MZM. -- Ned Scott 03:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible stalking of blocked user

A blocked user, Robert Young, has complained to me off wiki that User talk:Mentality#A new case for you is a case of continued stalking and harassment of him by User:NealIRC. User:Mentality replied to the second point with "I don't know what you're expecting me to do...?", so he does not seem to be involved. The material is now two weeks old. It certainly looks unacceptable to me. Robert says "This is a gross misuse of Wikipedia, and the above comments should be deleted. Not only have I never met this person, I don't want to be associated with him either, yet he continues the myth that I am his 'friend'. I am not bipolar, and my sexual orientation and religious beliefs are none of his business. I would ask that you block Neal to send a message that he needs to stop this." I would welcome advice about what action to take. Remove the material and/or block NealIRC? --Bduke (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ya, that's creepy. I removed the comments. I'm not sure why Mentality didn't have the sense to do it himself two weeks ago. Grsz11 04:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Robert Young has also e-mailed me about this yesterday (I picked up the e-mail today). I had previously noticed the comments (Neal himself pointed them out to me) and I then mentioned them to someone else (I will remove that comment now, as that diff shouldn't be advertised). I should have removed the comments from Mentality's talk page at that point, and I apologise for not doing so. Someone uninvolved should talk to Neal about what is acceptable and what isn't, as a brief look through his contributions and edit summaries shows other problems. Carcharoth (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Removal of the material and someone having a word with Neal seems the right approach. I think I have had too many arguments with him over several issues to be the person to have the word though. --Bduke (talk) 04:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I left a brief comment. I'm thoroughly creeped out by this incident. Grsz11 04:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

User:CarlosRodriguez continuted disruption

This user was recently blocked for 24 hours for "Edit-warring and disruption" by User:Jossi. I was told to come here if the behavior continued, and here I am. Since returning, he has continuted his disruptive behavior in the form of POV edits that he is constantly warned against making, and edit wars to get them in (though he may not have broken WP:3RR this time, yet). These diffs [136], [137] are identical to the edits he was warned against and blocked for. These diffs [138], [139], [140] are the same thing, only done individually over the course of 3 edits, one after the other. Thanks, Grsz11 05:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

He made four edits to Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy on April 11. I could be wrong, but I think they were all reverts because they restored edits he made to Jeremiah Wright before the controversy page existed (It was created on the 10th.) and the material was located there. But this happened a few days ago now, so I don't know if a block is still in order. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those edits were edits he had previously made at the Jeremiah Wright article, but were rejected as POV by others. The edits he's been making at Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy are identical to those at Jeremiah Wright that got him blocked the first time. Grsz11 05:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

In that case, it looks like a clear-cut case of WP:3RR violation. But it's a few days old already, so I don't know if the admins will block. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Gave final warning, especially in regards to two talk page comments and his edit warring. I will proceed to block if the disruption continues. seicer | talk | contribs 06:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

X for Dummies fork

Browsing some random articles, I came across M-theory, which has a note on the top directing people to Introduction to M-theory, a "generally accessible and less technical introduction to the topic". The introduction article cites not a single source, which aroused suspicion. As we are not the Simple English wikipedia (that's over at http://simple.wikipedia.org) the page seemed to stray somewhat close to a semblance of a POV fork, or at least something that can be explained at the main article. Just posting here to gather some opinions. -M^ask? 05:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the note at the top is a template, which would mean it's used elsewhere as well. But i'm still iffy about it. Grsz11 05:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

At least part of the article appears to have been copied from the book Turn of the Century. See [141] at Google Books. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 05:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it does. Good catch. -M^ask? 05:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The edit introducing the copyvio is here. It dates to 2004, and text after that is a derivitive, so this will have to be culled back to its state as of then. -M^ask? 06:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

As Grsz notes, the article is one of several of its sort, one of which is a featured article (the talk page of its FAC features a discussion of the propriety of our maintaining "introduction to" articles). The format is counseled by the Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible#"Introduction to..." articles style guideline, a proposed justification for which may be found, at least in part, in the "Many things..." essay. I, for one, have long thought we might do well to part with these articles, but a discussion about the underlying practice is best held at VPP or (with a link from VPP) Wikipedia talk:Make technical articles accessible. Joe 06:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to XXX articles are quite common and they are quite different to articles on the Simple English wikipedia, where the limited vocabulary of simple English is used. Intro articles just help to explain a topic in an introductory fashion in standard English. --Bduke (talk) 06:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that they're common. They don't fit into summary style, and should be used rarely if at all. Superm401 - Talk 06:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I hardly ever see them and they cause worries. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

These are definitely important, and serve a valuable purpose. On many subjects there is an endless argument between people who want Wikipedia to be a General Purpose encyclopedia and a technical one and there is simply no good way to divy these up. By removing material of a technical nature to a more technical article this plays an important role in helping users understand the topic, while still providing a valuable resource for those who want more than what a normal encyclopedia would offer. --Haemo (talk) 07:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio repair

I've reverted to the january 2004 version (the last one before the verbatim book text was introduced) as a quick measure. Someone needs to clear out the page history to that point to kill the copyvio and its derivatives. -M^ask? 07:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the copyrighted revisions and restored the infobox and a few other non coyrighted bits --Chris 07:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Completed AFD nomination on behalf of User:Gwen Gale

It seems that Gwen Gale started to nominate this page for deletion but didn't finish the job; I just completed it. If anyone disagrees feel free to revert. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Someone was clearing out the page history because of the copyvio and the article itself disappeared for a few minutes, leaving things in the lurch. A couple of editors have since argued that an introductory article on this topic could be helpful. If anyone wants to simply revert the AfD now, I'm ok with that. I'll have another look at things tonight and if it's still there, may or may not want to go forward with it. Strike that, someone has already commented to delete so I'd rather it stayed. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

User:67.165.106.235 being disruptive

Resolved.

This anonymous IP is one of several sock puppets of Edward G. Nilges, who's main account spinoza1111 has been blocked indefinitely for being disruptive. Mr. Nilges has used his sock puppets to post extremely long, disruptive, and unproductive rants on the talk page of the Ayn Rand article and when these rants were deleted he proceeded to vandalize the article itself calling her an "ugly cunt" and calling the editors "aspergerian retards". Since Mr. Nilges has obviously failed to learn his lesson about being disruptive, it is requested that his sock puppet accounts also be blocked indefinitely. His known sock puppet IPs are 219.78.60.96, 202.82.33.202, and 67.165.106.235 Idag (talk) 09:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

IPs are never blocked indefinitely, unless they're open proxies. I blocked the IP for two weeks, in the hope that he'll lose interest in the meantime. Daniel Case (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

So, I just received my very first death threat via WP's email system...

So, what's the normal procedure for dealing with this kind of situation? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 09:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Well, according to WP:TOV, you should consider posting at WP:ANI. Oh. Was it from a recognised account? Black Kite 09:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Yep. Someone I blocked recently who isn't too pleased with me, by the sound of it. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 10:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Just delete the email and reblock them with email block enabled. That's what I always do. Neıl ☎ 10:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Yup, agreed. Black Kite 10:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Done. Thanks for the input, guys. :) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 10:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
          • No problem. That usually resolves things - if a user is particularly incensed and starts creating new accounts solely to send more emails, you can always contact a checkuser and get their IP blocked. Neıl ☎ 11:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Death threats are illegal in most jurisdictions, and in most communities you would be strongly advised to report the fact that you got one to your local law enforcement agency. Why Wikipedia treats them so lightly is beyond me. Hesperian 11:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably because we really can't do anything about them. Since we generally don't know the user's actual name, we have absolutely nothing to give law enforcement officials to go on; and even then, you'd need a checkuser's help to make sure the report went to the right place, and that's assuming it's not some horrible ISP that can't be easily traced. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 12:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting though, a legal threat gets an indef block and a death threat gets....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

A death threat would get the user banned, forever and ever. A legal threat would see the user indefinitely blocked as if they are pursuing legal action relating to Wikipedia, they cannot continue to edit Wikipedia - if the user retracts it, they are frequently unblocked. Neıl ☎ 12:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well that's what I would have thought but yer note above suggested merely reblocking...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

See below - an indefinite block nobody would ever consider undoing is the same, for all intents and purposes, as a ban. Neıl ☎ 12:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It is just not true that there is nothing can be done. Law enforcement can request IP information. I don't think Wikipedia can volunteer it. Death threats are ... not okay! And they do create a hazard to Wikipedia, even more serious than legal threats. At least legal threats will presumably be followed through in the arena of law, which is designed for that. --Abd (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Casliber is right, its appaling that legal threats and BLP violations are treated with upmost speed and force and death threats are all the fun of the fair. A Death threat should get a perm ban full stop. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a single administrator who would consider unblocking an account that had made a death threat - an indefinite block that nobody is willing to undo is, de facto, a permanent ban. Neıl ☎ 12:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If its is "de facto, a permanent ban." why not just be done with it and go the whole hog. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, 100% of my numerous death threats (and, I suggest, the majority of most of them) come from throwaway dynamic IP addresses. Black Kite 12:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"come from throwaway dynamic IP addresses" Hence why we need to get law enforcement involved. I can only talk about the UK but the police take online threats very seriously and convictions have resulted. ISP's in the UK are required to keep information on their traffic for 6months including emails, as such if your dynamic IP was from the UK wikipedia can't do anything but the police can. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm in the UK (I'm pretty sure that anyone would be able to find that out by looking through my contribs or seeing the style of English I use) but I'm pretty sure that the user who sent the threat isn't. Not on the basis of the other IP addresses he's been using onsite, at least. If I *was* to report it to my local pollis (whether they'd take a threat from another country seriously or not), would WP be prepared to release the relevant logs if requested? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This is why I urge all admins, or any user who edits controversial areas or even just fights vandalism not to reveal any identifying information about themselves. If you already have just remove it, only about 4% of crazy people bother searching one's history. It does not take much, I was once harassed over the phone at work and home for two weeks because I would not let some punk spam his blog all over. You will be more effective if people cannot resort to attack against your true person.

Also, if you call the police and tell them you have an internet stalker but don't have any actual information about who they are, then they will open a file, take your statement, then do exactly nothing. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly why the Foundation should fulfill its Duty of Care and get its Lawyers to do the contacting the police. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Uhh, the police don't do nothing because of who called them, it is because you can't track people through the internet practically. I know from first hand experience that the Foundation works with the police the best they can in situation like this, it it is not their place to make the complaint. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"Uhh, the police don't do nothing because of who called them" Yes, a call from a $1000 an hour lawyer has more what the police call "Stingers" ie ways it can hurt you, than that of an average joe. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you have received a death threat, I would HIGHLY suggest you contact your local police informing them of it and the police where the IP is located. I am certain a checkuser can assist you in revealing the IP. Bstone (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition to my comment above - if a checkuser was preformed, would WP be able to release the relevant information to me in order that I might make the report? I'm thinking that his ISP should probably be informed too (it was a particularly nasty threat - against myself *and* my family and would almost certainly be a violation of the TOS of any ISP I've ever had dealings with) - would WP be prepared to do that on my behalf? Thanks. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Not without the approval of Mike Godwin, the Foundation attorney. Thatcher 17:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Admin abusing his powers in content dispute

• Relevant policy violation: Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disputes policy. I think others need to know about this abuse and warn the admin to stop abusing his tools to gain an unfair advantage in this content dispute.

• Synopsis of facts:

I opposed an admins massive changes after he locked the article to make changes he wanted, himself. I did not violate any policy, but he blocked me when I pointed out his abuse and reverted the massive changes against consensus. He blocked me on a very spurious reason, singling me out when others have reverted too. This is unfair and abusive. Admins should not be abusing their admin powers to gain a content advantage in an article. As a party to the content dispute, (and he is edit warring, too) he should not be using his admin powers to block those who oppose him, esp. when I have not even violated 3RR--yet he blocked me. If he was wrong, someone needs to rebuke his conduct for the sake of the probject.

• Details with diffs to prove what I said above is accurate:

Admin William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) puts a full protection on page. See:[142][143]

Then, after he protects the page, he starts making his changes to it, by blanking sections. There is no chance given for participation on talk page about what he wanted to do before he did it. No discussion. Its just his unilateral use of admin powers. See:[144]

He continues to make massive changes he wants after he protected the page. See:[145] And, again, he continues, making his mass deletions after he protected the page:[146]

He then unprotects the page and editors restore most of what he has removed without consensus. Then, another admin Rlevse (talk · contribs), comes in and protects the page again for a short period:[147]

But as soon as it gets unprotected,William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) comes in again and does a super mass deletion of this article. See this:[148]

I then complain about this on the talk page, and explain my reason for reverting him. See:[149]

Then he uses his admin powers to block me. Right after blocking me, he reverts back to his version, having rendered his opponent silent. See:[150]

Its not proper for admins to use their powers to protect the article and then edit it: it gives them a content change advantage. I read policy pages and this is not allowed. Since he became involved in content dispute, he should have abstained from using any admin powers on the article to gain an advantage, seeking a non-involved admin. Blocking the editor that he is in a content dispute with is a clear cut case of admin abuse. Just like when he protected the article and then started editing it to his own views--against consensus, and without even bothering to allow for a chance to discuss the massive changes. Also admins should not be edit warring, either, esp. not when they are using their tools to protect and block other editors there.

Also, despite other editors reverting, he singled me out for a block, after I challenged his abuse of admin powers, and calling for discussion to occur before the massive deletions. Other editors agreed with me and have protested his actions.

Thank you in advance for taking this seriously. I hope he stops and follows policy just like the rest of us do.Supergreenred (talk) 10:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• It's a rather extreme way of dealing with a problem, but what he did was absolutely the right result for the encyclopaedia, removing a series of edits which served to advance a POV. It's also stale. The protection summary was "the usual", which absolutely sums it up. People need to stop edit warring at that article. For values of "people" that explicitly includes you. Guy (Help!) 11:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I just want to add my own opinion that [151] has been extremely abuseful of his administrative powers. He repeatedly erases huge amounts of stuff in many articles even when it is well sourced, and then he threatens to suspend or ban uers who try to put them back in. He has a long history of doing this huge amounts of times, in many different articles. He is trying to censor points of view that disagree with his own. He is against letting articles be balanced. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion related to content and not administrators action TheRedPenOfDoom

• Why do we even have that article anyway? Like the Allegations of X arpetheid articles, it's a hive of POV violations and never will be the contrary. ~Frankly, I'll be surprised if it was kept for anything other than wikilawyering. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  Because its a well-defined subject extensively studied in academia. Sorry. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but it's been AfD'd many times and last was a speedy keep. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Number of AFDs mean nothing. Daniel Brandt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was effectively deleted on the 14th. (and the last speedy keep had nothing to do with AFD number). Sceptre ^(talk) 11:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep (come to think of it)... hmmm... Gwen Gale (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• It is hard to avoid characterising this complaint as an unjustified rant. I agree with JzG, the conduct of the admin looks strong but about right and those who were engaged in the edit war have to expect admins to intervene without being so argumentative even to the admin. --BozMo talk 11:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, and once admins become involved it's likely one side is going to complain. I think William made a good choice in trying to make some bold changes. It was ridiculous to then expect him to go find another admin to deal with someone edit-warring.

I have also reported Supergreenred for a 3RR vio. 4 reverts within 26 hours is not abiding by the spirit of the rules, especially given he'd just been let off the block early. John Smith's (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the fact that WMC was probably removing nonsense - I haven't checked, but its a safe assumption - why on earth was he editing through full protection? Was there a BLP problem or a consensus on the talkpage? I don't see any other reason why that would be acceptable. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Lets not assume. Cause you know what happens then.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

AFAICT (and I wasn't around) it was done in direct response to requests for an admin to intervene and do this on the talk page [152]. He even did what was asked and handed it back. [153]--BozMo talk 12:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Asked by one person. I approve of the Liancourts Rocks solution, but its absurd to claim that unilateral editing through protection is a reasonable response in each case. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? There are pages and pages of talk and I don't really have the appetite to go through it. However pruning to basics for a restart seems reasonable to me especially as there wasn't any obvious POV issue in the prune. --BozMo talk 14:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Repost of my statement on the talk page: I too feel the need to express concern that the admin who locked the article proceeded to make unilateral edits without prior discussion. Such actions would appear to be contrary to Wikipedia's spirit of Concensus. In Addition, I will point out that none of the Administrator's edits were due to violations of WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, or WP:BLP which would require immediate action. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess that comment on the talk page might have earnt you becoming one of five chosen people whom Supergreenred canvassed about this unhappiness? Are the others wanting to comment too? --BozMo talk 13:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

:::I cannot know the reason Supergreenred made the posts s/he did, nor can I know what actions any of the other users will take based on those posts. But, perhaps WP:AGF would be applicable? 144.15.255.227 (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. That's why I said it would be interesting to see their comments. Otherwise we might as well close this. --BozMo talk 13:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring by Supergreenred

I filed a 3RR report as I mentioned above. The reviewing admin deemed there had been no violation because there "has" to be at least four reversions within 24 hours. However, as I explained, there are many cases where people are blocked for reverting four times within 24+x hours. SGR is not a new user as he admits, so I think he should have known better.

The reviewing admin said he was happy for other admins to review the matter, so I would appreciate another admin/some other admins to take a look. I think reverting 4 times in 26 hours is not good, especially given he just got off a block and then came filed this report. If he was advised to resolve the dispute through means other than edit-warring by the admin that unblocked him, why should he be allowed to carry on reverting?

The report can be found here. John Smith's (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hello to everyone! I want to tell you one case of vandalism [[154]]. The user Niko Silver is vandalizing my page and my staffs. Since it is a user page he is not allowed to delete my staffs. Please can you block him or warn him somehow. Thanks --MacedonianBoy (talk) 11:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You might try asking this user about why he removed your userboxes first - we generally don't block users for a single edit, and he appeared to feel there was some reason those boxes wouldn't be allowed, judging by his edit summary. Usually discussion is preferred to administrative action. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 12:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I see at least one userbox that might be considered extremely offensive --"I don't believe in Greek culture or Civilization". Admittedly, I'm not sure what this is in reference to or its basis in political beliefs. Macedonia, I suggest you read this guideline on innapropriate content for userpages. It might be best to remove such a userbox as many might be offended. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 12:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyhow he cannot remove it just like that. Typical vandalism. MacedonianBoy (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, assuming it is not considered "extremely offensive material", then yes, you are right, he shouldn't have removed it (although he may have been extremely offended by it). I would suggest you personally remove that userbox from your page. If he continues to edit your user space after that then of course he may be blocked. Agreed? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

He's obviously not the only user to be offended. User:Black Kite removed the aforementioned box recently, the most recent edit to the page (currently). George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 19:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Black kite likely saw this thread here and removed it, but that was after my edit. I'm not sure if MacedoniaBoy is attempting to defend the use of such a box, but rather another editor removing it without his permission. Maybe this can be marked as resolved, I don't see any continuing dispute here. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Kurtlockwood

Resolved

Not 100% sure this is the correct place but, the above user has committed an abuse of WP:Civil on another user's talk page. I went to his talk page to place a gentle warning and found the page protected so, am bringing it here. Thanks Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Try WP:WQA. That is the appropriate place to bring civility concerns. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. Will take it there now. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please reinsert that New York Times article to every point it supports

I found a New York Times article supporting four points of the Treaty of Trianon. Two users decided to delete it from two points without acceptable reason given on the talk page while keeping the text of the Treaty which is obviously not a third party source (even if it's OK, that's no reason to remove better sources). As I don't want to break rules, I would ask an administrator to reinsert the reference to all four points of the article that it supports.
The NYT is reliable, neutral, English language reference, most of the times requested for Featured Article Candidates. Squash Racket (talk) 12:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. Squash Racket (talk) 12:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please take further/future questions of this sort to WP:RS/N. There is a reason why you might have been reverted in this case: a recent newspaper article, even if in the most highly-regarded newspaper I know of, is not preferred sourcing for a major historical article, especially as compared to peer-reviewed scholarly work. I doubt the NYT is used in historical FAs; if it is, it says less about the NYT and more about some FARs. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It simply got removed. If peer-reviewed, possibly English language academic sources will be added with inline citations, it's OK. Even then I wouldn't remove a NYT article, leaving it as a complementary source. Right now the article is full of citation tags and a bunch of sources of different qualities are mentioned only at the end.

Also don't forget The New York Times was founded seven decades before this "historical event". Squash Racket (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Racist Comments

Resolved

I have removed racist comments here by Gibnews. What is the procedure for dealing with racist remarks? And is it a blocking offence?BigDunc (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

A lot of Welsh people are called 'Taffy', Scottish people 'Jock', and Englishmen 'John'. It's a cruel world out there. --Major Bonkers (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Put another way, I am not sure that referring to nationalities by common first names there is generally considered to be racism? --BozMo talk 14:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

So the whole of Algeria are potential terrorists. And the use of derogatory terms to describe people should not be accepted anywhere.BigDunc (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok; treating this complaint at face value: firstly; how do the remarks that you complain of actually fall within the definition of racism (see here): secondly; we've been here before, with an editor trying to promote his own view and shut down discussion by claiming racism. I don't mean to be rude, but most of us survived childhood despite worse insults than this. Wouldn't all our time be better spent if you and Gibnews actually tried to reach a consensus over the Mairéad Farrell article? --Major Bonkers (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What consensus would Gibnews and I need to reach as I have no dispute with this editor. Maybe it's an attempt to deflect away from the matter at hand by suggesting I am in a content dispute hey major.BigDunc (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I came here after a message on my talk page from BigDunc, and I'm kind-of-in-the-middle on this one. Gibnews appears to have been making a point about perceived threats of terrorism, and whether or not any of us agrees with that point or even with the way that the concept of "terrorism" has been constructed to apply only to non-state actors, in substance it's the sort of comment which can be found in many places. However, the glib use of the stereotypical labels "Paddy" and "Mohammed" is unneccessary and will be offensive to many people. I'm not sure whether it's actually racist to use that sort language, but it's certainly unhelpful because the offence it may cause can raise tempers. Those tags make for easy glib phrasing, but editors who actually want to reach consensus shouldn't use lazy glib labels like that, because they can raise tempers and impede dialogue.

However, a polite request to desist would be quite sufficient unless this sort of thing is persistent. At this stage, I see no need need for admin intervention, and would suggest that all the editors involved try to de-escalate the dispute, and to try to build a climate where they might reach consenus. Perhaps taking a short break from the subject might help? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The remarks were deliberately designed to be provocative, therefore WP:AGF need not apply. While offensive they are also I suggest illustrative. They point to low intellect and ignorance, usually derived from dependency, or being a dependant i.e. colonist. That they lack self esteem, is obvious, having to adopt the colonial mentality, not being seen as native in the first insistent, they adopt comfort in the term subject. A subject not being a citizen they ape the ways and customs of another nation, further strengthening the ignorance and retarded intelligence. Common sense would dictate that this type of attitude should not be encouraged or dismissed but challenged. Which can be difficult when dealing with the intellectually challenged within our community.--Domer48 (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"Low intellect", "ignorance", "colonial mentality", "retarded", intellectually challenged". Have you ever actually read WP:CIVIL?. Regardless of the provocative nature of Gibnews' comments, please don't post anything like that again. Black Kite 18:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The remarks I made were not 'designed to be provocative' simply to reflect a geographical shift in the perceived threat of terrorism. The over reaction looks to me like an excuse to censor other valid points made. I have reverted that taking out any generic references. My IQ has been above average on all tests since the age of 11 and I do not live in a colony. On balance the comments and actions from Domer48 seem to be much more offensive than anything else. Nobody mentioned this to me before complaining here. --Gibnews (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Major Bonkers informed you 30 mins or so after I posted here. I was about to but he had done so.BigDunc (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the procedure would be to mention it first before here rather than relying on someone to tell me. Reading the highly abusive posting by Domer48 he seems to have some issue about my nationality, which is for the record a British Citizen the apes live up the rock. In respect of Algeria, prospective visitors should read this --Gibnews (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Black Kite, I was putting forward my view in relation to Racist Comments, if it is not correct I'm open to alternatives. Maybe you could suggest something. Now I have no time for Racist Comments, or those who make them. I have not addressed my remarks to anyone, other that to state quite clearly that the remarks were deliberately designed to be provocative. I get the impression that you view the comments as being of a provocative nature, and I sure you would not like anyone to post anything like that again, but just forgot to mention that? You may not agree with my view of a Racist, but we both agree they have no place in our community. --Domer48 (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Your comments here seem to be more offensive than anything I have innocently said - your reference to apes does seem to be a specific racial slur of the worst kind. Anyway I have removed any of my contentious remarks and restored the part censored under the pretext of 'racism'. A simple request on my user page would have been enough. --Gibnews (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If I offend people who make Racist Comments frankly I could not give a toss. Since you are offended by my view of them says more about you than me. As to ape or put another way mimic, obvious in the context it was used, displays your poor attempt at misdirection. I'm saying out stright that your remarks were not "innocently said," but were deliberately designed to be provocative, therefore WP:AGF need not apply. So cop onto yourself, now have I made myself clear. --Domer48 (talk) 22:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Persistent vandals, 14 april 2008

Resolved

Two IP only account names I've tracked down: User:209.216.70.237 User:209.216.70.237

Both need blocking. Thanks. Sojourner001 (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The one you listed (twice) has been blocked. Thanks for pointing out the problem! Next time, WP:AIV is a better place for this. Tan | 39 15:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Bad-mouthing

Please look at this and then this; I am concerned that I am now going to be bad-mouthed off-wiki, and that the points I raised in the first diff are being over-trodden. Any thoughts (preferably about this issue rather than the topics referenced in the diffs)? —TreasuryTag—t—c 15:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This one was my mistake; I saw an editor being (in my opinion) harrassed. I wrote a suggestion for him on his talk page, to prevent him from being sucked into a fight, but decided it would be wiser to email instead. However, I cleverly saved it to the talk page instead of the email by accident. I deleted it about 10 seconds later, but too late. I stand by my opinion, but regret that I posted it on the talk page. --barneca (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm still upset that if you have concerns, you didn't raise them with me or the community, but instead privately communicated them to a user with whom you don't seem to have ever interacted before. So there's now going to be some off-wiki chat about me which isn't going to serve Wikipedia at all. As I said, there are processes for complaining about users' behaviour, and messaging another isn't one of them. —TreasuryTag—t—c 15:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

So now we're going to try to regulate the off-Wiki behavior and actions of users? Tan | 39 15:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see how Barneca may have just wanted to advise the user directly involved with you and not get drawn into it himself. You can't force someone to discuss anything with you if they don't want to. --Kbdank71 15:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything untowards here. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

My point was that if Barneca had the interests of Wikipedia at heart, s/he would utilise dispute resolution. But if, as I fear, s/he doesn't, then that is a matter that needs attention. Wikipedia is not served by underhand tactics, and is served by open public discussion. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Barneca uses underhand tactics in his day to day business on WP. Check out User talk:Dark3345. I believe this account may have been created as a clone by Barneca to try and dig a grave for David and Sammy, 2 of the most outspoken critics of Barneca's admin sytle, but by no means the only critics, there are hundreds of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.199.61 (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If Barneca created the account, why did he block it? George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 19:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

162.127.23.84 (talk · contribs) blocked

The above IP address has just been blocked for vandalism. I'm reporting it here as it's registered to the State of Nebraska. While it's not a "sensitive IP", per WP:SIP, I'm still reporting it here and to the Foundation just in case. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's just a school IP, part of NEK12NET, Nebraska's public school network. Kww (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tagged it with sharedIPedu instead of the standard sharedIP template to make it clearer. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 19:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Funny, so what's the "Office of the CIO" stuff about, then? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Moreschi

Resolved

 – Moreschi, try to be correct and careful, in future, please.

I ran across User:Moreschi with this diff, where he blatantly violates Wikipedia:CIVIL#Engaging_in_incivility. "Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("snipped rambling crap") or talk page posts ("that's the stupidest thing I've ever seen")."

I saw that many more of his edits were in violation of WP:CIVIL such as here, here,

I attempted to bring his attention to the policy on his talk page, but his response was to pretend that he does not have to abide by this policy, made clear in the edit summary and gives the actual posted response the feel of a threat. More startlingly, it appears that he is making administrative actions [155] [156] without showing that on the user page or being in such a category. If this is an administrator acting like this, much more civility should be used by an admin at all times. If an admin can discuss this with him, it would be much appreciated. KV(Talk) 17:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

While there certainly has been a poor demonstration of civility here, I will point out that admins do not need to mark ourselves in special ways. It really does reflect poorly on Wikipedia's public image when admins don't act in a civil fashion. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Since your comment seems to have been dismissed as resulting from some sort of involvement, I have made an comment as an uninvolved person on the users talk page. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't phrase that clearly. It's not worse that he does not display adminship, but that it's an admin being uncivil. KV(Talk) 17:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you btw. KV(Talk) 17:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think Moreschi's edits were right though. I've tagged that article, it needs a serious overhaul. Black Kite 18:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the edits were correct. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

See also WP:FTN#New project on hermetism. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi's being correct doesn't mean he ought to get away with being incivil. Neıl ☎ 18:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would be more convenient for us all if he didn't say what we were thinking. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it would be more convenient for us all if he said it courteously. It isn't difficult. Neıl ☎ 20:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course being correct does not allow this user to be uncivil. The user has been told just that, and unless there are further problems I think this is resolved. _(1 == 2)^Until 19:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree the discussion is resolved. John Carter (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The resolved tag on this says "try to be correct and politically correct, in future, please", but "civility" is not the same as "political correctness". Is there a reason why "civil" couldn't have been used? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Because some of us don't find Moreschi's edit summary uncivil. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

strange soapbox/coatracky disruption

I brought this to the attention of the BLP noticeboard earlier, but as there has been no feedback from there, and the issue has escalated somewhat, here goes.

An anon has been trying to use the George Weigel article as a soapbox, in particular, as a coatrack for their opinion of the Iraq war. Following the history of the article and talkpage should make that apparent; I have provided a more detailed timeline below.

Without editwarring, I would like to be able to do something about the article. I encourage the appropriate attention to the page, the anons, or both, and certainly will not disregard any constructive suggestions as to how I could have handled the situation better. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC) I have not notified User:J.delanoy of this discussion to avoid the appearance of canvassing, but I would think it appropriate to do so, if someone else decides to. The latest IP has been notified, indeed warned. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If they're anons, would semi-protection suffice? George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 19:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It would certainly be sufficient, however it might be a little strong, as apparently unrelated IPs have made constructive edits (for example) during this silliness. However, if the community deems it appropriate per discussion here or elsewhere, so be it. I note that other uninvolved established users have already dropped by to help maintain the article, so this discussion is helping. Thanks. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Phone number in article

A recent edit added a person's name and telephone number into an article (not a notable person or wikipedia user that I am aware of - or any connection with the article). I have reverted but should the revision be deleted? --Snigbrook ^(talk) 17:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:OVERSIGHT -MBK₀₀₄ 17:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really, if its not specified who it belongs to, or is incorrect. Rudget (review) 17:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

In this case, I would request oversight. Rudget (review) 17:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I requested oversight, and the edit has now been removed. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 23:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It is specified who it belongs to; there's no real reason not to oversight it, is there? —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Is oversight necessary? I would imagine deleting the revision would suffice for this sort of thing. Neıl ☎ 18:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This is basically what oversight exists for, not to mention that it is much easier to use oversight for this than regular deletion. Mr.Z-man 18:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) It has, in fact, been our general practice to suggest that oversight be requested for revisions that reveal a telephone number, especially those that mean to associate a name with that number, consistent with the first of the two reasons for oversight enumerated at RFO. I continue to fail to understand why revision deletion does not suffice for situations like this—oversight is, IMHO, grossly overused (and almost certainly need not to exist at all), although that overuse is not particularly problematic as regards the removal of personal information—but that ship seems to have sailed. Joe 18:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism at The Used and The Used discography

The following users (also suspected sockpuppets) User:USEDfan and User:Booowooo are persistently reverting appropriate edits to the above pages. Please excuse the lack of diffs, there are so many. A simple check of the history of both users shows they refuse to discuss their changes. Could we get a temporary ban until they cool down, maybe they will then engage in discussion then....Nouse4aname (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

So far two are blocked. The only question is whether Booowooo ought to be blocked as well. I'm conflicted based on the article history.--chaser - t 19:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC) All blocked, including Nouse4aname.--chaser - t 19:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if I could understand USEDfan and Booowooo's edit summaries and comments. Their English comprehension is downright awful. seicer | talk | contribs 19:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Nouse4aname has been unblocked. Corvus cornix_talk 20:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, this is an interesting edit summary. Corvus cornix_talk 20:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Extra helpings of Crazy in the Fitna article

Resolved

 – Protection request filed —TreasuryTag—t—c 21:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I am requesting admin attention at Talk:Fitna (film). We have a controversial topic there, and several anon accounts have been jumping in with uncivil comments. This is leading to a Wild West atmosphere amongst the other editors, and some edit-warring has been occurring. I think that the anons are all the same person but I'm not sure. Whoever they are though, the rudeness is not helping us to reach consensus. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This user is attempting to use the system to harm another user - I may be the only anonymous account in the discussion and this user is well aware of this. Please ask the user Arcayne to post "Diffs" to support his accusation. Arcayne has prviously filed formal charges against me accusing me of "Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents" and "3RR violation using socks". without a single "Diff" cited. There is no basis to support his allegations. [157] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.196.81 (talk • contribs)

With respect, you were but part of the problem, anon. Here I asked for some eyes on the article, as other editors are getting a bit too revert-y in the article page. Some of the calming influence of an admin might settle folk down there.

The diffs you requested are below, in the complaint concerning you. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action. The article is now dispute-locked, which will bring folk to the table, so to speak. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in point of fact - The article has been semi-protected for several day's now. Your charge is baseless and false - NO Anon has edited the article for several days.75.57.196.81 (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for not spelling it out clearer, anon. The hostile environment fostered in the article discussion page led to the revert war in the article. Please do not pretend that you didn't enlist folk to make edits on your behalf (1 2). The article is protected now from anyone making changes until we have some agreement. Be happy with that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not "Enlist Folk" - Is there no end to this McCarthyism? An edit was made per the clear instruction of the Reliable Source Notice Board - It was specifically stated by them to use the Credits in the InfoBox - it was on that basis that the change was made.75.57.196.81 (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is the exact quote:

The answer stays the same. The film credits are a perfectly acceptable source for film articles, and should be the preferred source for listing in the infobox.

Clear, concise, reasonable. 75.57.196.81 (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Admin assistance requested at anon's talkpage

At User_talk:75.57.196.81, the anon keeps blanking the IP banner from the page which identifies a host of other IP addresses that contain pertinent usertalk complaints. Other editors have added it back, but he's well past 3RR (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, [] and notified of 3RR vio here) at this point.

The user (essentially an SPA in the Fitna and related articles) refuses to create an account and the numerous accounts, each contain edit histories of escalating incivility, towards both myself (1 2, 3 4) and others (1, 2). As the anon switches between IPs, the edit history is lost, as well as any complaints voiced on the anon usertalk page. I attempted to add an IP banner in three of the IPs that have sprung up over the past day or so. The 3RR is the anon attempting to remove the banner (which cannot be removed).
Please help. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This is my solution to the question of an ip removing the header and ip ident - and I don't mind if any other admin executes it. I would just remind whomever not to allow cascading protection, as the subpage will be caught (I think - best be safe anyway!) Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This user has already formally charged me with "Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents" and "3RR violation using socks" his charge was baseless and without any evidence he is MORE THAN WELL AWARE THAT THIS IS ONE USER AND HAS BEEN TOLD THIS.[158] This user is manipulating the system to use as a weapon against another user.75.57.196.81 (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's possible. Still, you oughtn't to remove the banner from your talkpage. —TreasuryTag—t—c 21:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The banner was placed there by Arcayne - I initially resented having him follow me around Wiki reverting me and undercutting me at his every opportunity. I am not comfortable with this obsession he appears to have with me.

It was not a formal banner - Arcayne took it upon himself to place it there. He then gathered up all his comments about me and added those. Those comments I read and left in the "History", it was those edits I objected to - Arcayne was simply colonizing my user page and edited it as he saw fit - and then reverting any changes I made to my own user page.75.57.196.81 (talk) 21:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• It is a one use banner, and one appropriate to identify the differing ip's from the same range that are editing the same article so that contrib histories can be compared. As such it benefits the discussion and there should be consensus if it were to be removed. I agree that it is appropriate for the purpose, and would not wish to see it removed presently. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Several of my edits retained the banner and simply dropped Arcaynes conquest of my user page in the history - additionally this not only stopped but was discussed hours ago when the first neutral third party stepped in. It was a dead issue that lasted 5 minutes and occurred on my personal talk page.. 75.57.196.81 (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see, your accusations that Arcayne "colonized" and "conquered" your userpage are unfounded. As far as I can tell, he legitimately added warnings to your page. As you said, there could be numerous editors at this address. If you are worried about misdirected warnings, create an account. With regard to the banner on top, there is absolutely no reason that it should be removed. It is there to enable administrators to contact the owner of the IP address to report abuse. It also serves as a warning to potential problem editors, stating that is possible to trace their contributions, so they may want to be careful what they do. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I misunderstood what you were talking about, but my opinion remains the same. There is no reason to remove the banner, as it could be useful if a range block ever became necessary. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Pointing out that I did added instances of the behavioral issues after the initial posting. and that I wasn't trying to populate the anon's usertalk page with my posts (others had complained there as well). I would submit that the behavioral problems exhibited by the anon are far from a dead issue - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Giano II

I have unblocked Giano II per apparent consensus on User_talk:Giano_II and User talk:Kwsn. Please discuss my and Kwsn's action here Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Got to be just about the worst block I've seen in some time - explain yourself Kwsn. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I for one strongly agree with this unblock, and am surprised that after making what was clearly going to be a controversial block that Kswn made himself unavailable. AniMate 00:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a real shame the way Kwsn has been treated for daring to hold Giano to the same standards as anyone else. Protect Giano if you must but do not sling mud at those who don't.

But then, the civility policy does not apply to Giano, there are enough admins who seek to protect him from blocks at any cost to ensure that. Saying that blocking someone for engaging in a personal attack while on civility parole is controversial is just baffling. Poor Kwsn, you should be ashamed of lashing out at him for a block that would not have been given a second look if it was not Giano. _(1 == 2)^Until 00:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

i'm filing an arbcom case if he's not back here in 24 hours - until - you don't get to decide your offended over something trivial and get someone blocked over it, particularly when the edits had stopped.--Joopercoopers (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

My response to double standard comments is MONGO. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

File a case and watch it be rejected. One bad block != arbcom. Majorly (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's starting to look like constructive harassment from where I'm standing. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Get your facts straight. I did not decide this block. In fact I decided to leave it to others to notice. He called me a stalker, and I don't have to be offended for that to be against policy. But I am offended, very. I'll tell you right now, the uncivil comments have not stopped, just wait there will be more. Not sure what you will put in your arbcom case, "Admin enforced WP:NPA"? _(1 == 2)^Until 00:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I am confused, Until 1==2. You had just finished praising Giano for the very same action that resulted in, first a warning, and then a block. Risker (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I certainly did not praise him for his personal attack. _(1 == 2)^Until 00:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Aren't there any adults here - or are we to pander to the most delicate of sensibilities? --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You can make a proposal at WT:NPA if you think personal attacks should not be actionable in egregious or repeated cases. _(1 == 2)^Until 00:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Bless you - perhaps an attack of the vapours next? Perhaps I'll start with the shocking abuse of WP:BLOCK. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Rather than spiralling into some more well-crafted recriminations, I would love this latest bit of drama to be nipped in the bud. At least until Giano has a chance to comment - he'll already have enough hyperbole to sift through, and probably chuckle at. Block made in good faith, not the best block however, given the lack of a warning and Giano mentioning he was signing off anyway, bad block undone, that probably should be it. It won't be, but it should be. Jooper, no more snark, please. Neıl ☎ 00:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok neil - nice de-escalation - pity there not more of you. night all. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Neıl ☎ 00:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome. Kwsn - when you get back, care to explain your block and run please? --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The lack of warnings is a red herring here; Giano is certainly aware of the civility sanction (which is here). Moreover, since the sanction is based on a long pattern of incivility, signing off for the evening isn't a factor. This diff is enough, per the arbcom sanction, for a legitimate block. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, just the basic rundown here (will expand when I get around to it): I blocked based off of warring on FT2's talk page. FT2 had commentted a comment by Giano out of his talk (with an edit summary saying he read it), and Giano kept on removing the comment tags. The "stalker" comment didn't help much. I probably would not have blocked except for the fact he was under ArbCom sanctions for civility. The "run" was because I had an appointment to take care of. Kwsn-pub (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Navnløs adding vandalism warnings for non-vandal edits

Navnløs (talk · contribs) has a bad habit of issuing vandalism warnings for edits that clearly aren't vandalism. against JzG, against Rockismorethanmusic, against Nouse4aname and against SqueakBox Navnløs issued vandalism warnings for edits that were nothing more than content disputes with the other editors. Navnløs has a lengthy block history for edit warring and violating 3RR. I do not see where this evenings edits/warnings are an attempt to shade 3RR but he's come close on at least one. Perhaps someone could have a discussion with the editor on what vandalism really is and what type of edit deserves a vandalism warning. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 00:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I want an apology. This is not acceptable, and should be acknowledged as such

The first encounter ( [[159]] ) I have had with an admin named Adambro has resulted in repeated incivility. Adambro, rather than commenting on my contributions, decided to comment on me personally in a negative sense regarding my memory of an obvious and unforgettable wikipedia principle (namely, the whole "be bold" thing). I find this to be unacceptable on it's own but would usually let it pass. However, Adambro opted to do this in the third person while replying to the comment I had just made, before once more referring to me directly - " Crimsone seems to forget this is a wiki where users are encouraged to be bold whilst of course remembering our key polices and guidelines."

This left me inclined, in my reply to Adambro, to point out the incivility inherent in that remark, which one would assume is likely to leave anybody with the realisation that it did not amuse me, and I infact found it offensive - apparently it was intended for the discussion as a whole, though at that point there were only the two of us discussing it. However, rather than apologising for any unintentional offence, or even just plain ignoring it, what I got in reply involved yet more incivility through a complete failure to assume good faith...

"You're welcome to stand up for a "better way" but perhaps consider avoiding suggesting other editors are not being civil whilst you do so. Certainly annoying other editors who you happen to disagree with is not going to make the Wiki any better, better for you perhaps but not better for the readers."

... whereas all I'd done was to argue a point without getting anymore personal than to point out that to negatively and without very good sound cause, refer personally to an editor who's comment you are responding to in the third person is incivil, and certainly should be done merely because you disagree with someone. It should be fairly clear that making personall suppossitions about people publically is not ok. I did my best to make it clear, but apparently, I am out for me and my own ego rather than the good of the encylopedia - lets not forget here that if Adambro has seen my other contributions, he'll have realised that I've been a member here since 2005, am a rollback user (granted to me by complete suprise by the way... I didn't ask, but was one of the first to get it seems) have contributied significantly to, and nominated an FA which was accepted... blah, blah, - and if he hadn't seen my other contributions, he had no business making such remarks, having no good grounds on which to make them.

This is where I demanded an apology. The emphatic answer came back "No", the reasoning roughly being that he's an administrator, and so has substantial experience thus clearly knows better than I do about all these things, and I am the one that's wrong for being offended. You know... up untill that second insult, I could almost have ignored it had it not come from an administrator, but administrators aren't supposed to be administrators unless they are inclined to follow the rules and guidelines as best as possible and set an example. I somehow doubt that WP:IAR really aplies to me getting an apology... yet it was all but implied, in that I was categorically told that he would discuss it no further because it was all getting in the way of making the encylopedia better, and simply wasn't going to apologise. Apparently, debating the issue of him offering an apology for his incivility is a "waste of time". In the process of which, I get my command of my mother tongue (English) insulted - where, I do believe, I have a userbox clearly on my userpage, quite clearly stating I am a native speaker - not to mention that I've used it pretty well, and the only possibly cause he had to assume my english to be anything but a first language is that he couldn't apparently see (after I'd explained it) why I should make note of his original incivility. Fact is, I'm sick of the incivility on her, and I'm sick of being personally slurred by implications and suppositions, and patronised as though I only arived todat when I mention something wrong with an article on a talk page... I'm not about to let it go unchecked from an admin, because if an admin is free to do it, then what's to stop anybody else?

So... after explaining again why it was incivil, and that I want an apology for the lack of good faith and the incivility, and the insult over my command of my mother tongue... And in fact I demand that apology (and in the process agreeing that the venue for the continuing conversation was wrong, and pointing out that thus without an apology to end it, I would bring the issue here)... and finally making the point "one further thing... what makes you think it's in the slightest way OK to get personal with me at all, let alone in the third person to the rest of the discussion as you say? Whatever happened to "discuss the contribution, not the contributor?", I get...

"Well considering that English is your first language then it surprises me even more that simply referring to to you in the third person was enough to start upsetting you to merit you mentioning it. I will once again inform you that I will not be apologising for what you perceive I may have done wrong and your threats of raising this at ANI will not prompt me to. Good night.!"

...in reply. Apart from the obvious dissatisfaction with that response, and apart from the obvious fact that what I "percieve" is in fact what is there... namely, ...

• A third person supposition of my inability to remember and recall key Wikipedia principles
• An assertion that I'm damaging the encyclopedia through being out for myself rather than the encyclopedia
• An insulting comment suggesting poor command of my mother tongue to the point it would be suprising if it were my first language
• An assertion that I am being unreasonable in being offended at the original third person supposition
• An assertion that all of this incivility is in my mind, and that I don't know what's incivil as well as he does, as he lorded his administratorship as though that meant I couldn't possibly surpass his experience (whatever happened to administratorship not being a big deal?)
• A failure to assume good faith

... I finally get ...

• An accusation that my mention of ANI was some kind of threat, thus suggesting a lack of integrity n my part, a sense of untouchability on his, and once more demonstrating a lack of good faith

...when in reality it was merely a run of the mill fact, and here I am, on AN/I, taking to discussion to a more appropriate venue (which is the reason I'm here with it now and not there - and the only reason). All I want, and all I wanted after the second round of incivility, was an apology for it. And that's still all I want now... and administrator or not, after that behaviour, I rather feel I deserve one. In fact, after that lot, I'd demand an apology of any editor. It's not, in my view, something that is excusable in someone who cites their administrator status as evidence of some manner of superiority in understanding of wiki's basic rules in the least though. I want a simple apology, that's all - is it really so much to ask? I do believe it's even mentioned as a recommended course of action by the relevant policy. Crimsone (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)