Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive669

Someone65: Violation of 3RR under aggravated circumstances
Please pardon my diffs, I'm not good with archives. Asking for sanctions against for this 3RR, in order to prevent further damage, due to the following circumstances.

1. Violation of 3RR: These reverts on January 30th to replace material I was trying to correct. In fact, you will notice some portions were reverted four times today by Someone65.

2. Note the misleading edit summaries on the most recent reverts, this is part of a pattern of misleading edit summaries.

3. History of destructive edits followed by denials and attempts at deception.


 * Here Someone65 executed a mass rename of "Islamic" articles to "Caliphate" articles. When called out, the editor claims authority under an RFC/U the editor was not associated with. This ended the same day in sanctions for Someone65 due to apparent unrelated sockpuppetry.


 * Here, the editor becomes frustrated and attacks an article I was working on previously, for purposes of revenge. Again, no responsibility is taken. This incident ended in sanctions due to misrepresentation and retaliation. Note in this ANI Someone65 is complaining about the same person who is currently the subject of abuse from this editor.

4. Insulting, demeaning, wiki-threatening dialog directed against another editor on their talk page. Outside the bounds of civility. Here, near the end of the section, Someone65 feels compelled to remind Imadjafar he has forgotten Islam rejects the bible. A provocative allegation against the religion of other editors.

5. Tendentious editing: Someone65 repeatedly cycles through a pattern of aggressive editing, with misrepresentative edit summaries and few sources. This will eventually lead to an incident where the editor denies responsibility for their actions. After enforcement actions are taken against the editor, things will go along quietly for a while, punctuated by requests for additional administrative authority and editing on a broadened range of topics. Eventually, though, it will lead to another incident in the Islamic articles. The current 3RR violation stems from the dispute in December which ended in sanction for the editor.

Aquib (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me try to defuse this situation a little.  While I understand Aquib's frustration with Someone65's edits, I see no reason to believe that they were done out of malice, or with any deliberate intention to deceive.


 * 1. These edits of   Someone65's did not violate the three revert rule.   The second paragraph of that rule tells us: "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.".  Thus,  Someone65's last 3 edits count only as a single revert, and so he only made three reverts in total in the 24-hour period from 5:33 on January 30 to 5:33 on January 31 (the time of his last edit).


 * 2. The edit summary of this edit may appear to have been grossly deceptive, but there is a very simple (reasonably) good-faith explanation of it.  It's evident from the template talk page, and the edits themselves, together with their summaries, that Somone65 has agreed that Elizabeth,  Jochebed and Rachel could be included in the template, but not Rebecca, Zipporah or Anne.  What he did in the first of his last three edits was to go back to  this version of the template&mdash;which contained none of the six disputed ladies&mdash;and  added Elizabeth  to it.  Thus his edit summary was (at least partially) accurate, if incomplete.  He was certainly remiss in neglecting to mention that he had, at the same time, removed the other five ladies from the template (although his failure to add Jochebed and Rachel may have been inadvertent, since he did add them subsequently).   Unfortunately, when he added Jochebed, he appears to have mistakenly added it to the version he originally started with instead of the one he had just created.  Thus, although the resulting edit did add Jochebed, it also had the effect (I believe inadvertent) of removing the Elizabeth he had just added.  Thus, it appears to me that the apparent deceptiveness of these edit summaries resulted largely from carelessness in the edits themselves, rather than from any deliberate attempt to mislead.
 * David Wilson (talk · cont) 21:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I thank you for this patient and thoughtful explanation. Perhaps I have overreacted. I withdraw my complaint. Aquib (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Candid advice requested about sock detection
Hi all. Since things seem relatively quiet here at the moment, I hope people won't mind if I pose a question that I've wanted to ask here for a long while: Is there anything at all that can be done by a checkuser when you see a new account that very obviously is not a new user, but you have no idea whose sock it might be? ( Yes, I know not every such account is a sock, e.g. could be a former ip editor. ) And more, is there any way to avoid "spilling the beans" in such a case, so as not to just educate a sockmaster about how to avoid detection next time he creates a sock account? I'm aware that there are both official and unofficial ways to proceed in such a case, and would be especially grateful for any candid advice about the unofficial-but-permitted ones, if anyone is willing to provide that, or perhaps to e-mail me with the same. Thanks, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is what I do:
 * If the new account's behaviour is not actually problematic and the new account does not belong to a faction in a conflict, I just don't worry. Often editors in good standing do a legitimate restart, e.g. for privacy reasons after being outed.
 * Otherwise watchlist the user's talk page. If the user starts misbehaving, someone will warn them and I will be reminded of the suspicion.
 * If I really think the user is a problem and might be a serial reincarnator, I consult WP:LTA to see if they fit any known pattern. If so, I would quietly contact a functionary who has experience with the banned user in question. Hans Adler 13:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I would look at the history of the articles they are editing to see if there has been edit-warring or other disruptive editing in the past. A previous editor may have been banned.  Compare their writing style, articles edited and the time of day they edit.  Be aware that controversial articles may have attracted more than one sockmaster.  If there is a gap in time between the old and new editing, it may not be possible to conduct a checkuser, and you will have to rely on editing similarity.  TFD (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Hans; thanks Four Deuces. Those are helpful suggestions. But maybe I can be more specific? There were two accounts that caught my eye this time the question came up for me:


 * − One immediately began his career by multiply-reverting another user he claimed (accurately) was a sock, and striking out that sock's talk-page comments, and then he jumped into one of our most conflict-ridden areas on the opposite side of the known sock, and into an acrimonious AfD in that same subject area.


 * − The other, in his 4th edit, started PRODing articles left and right, nominating something like 15 articles straight away, then !voting in maybe another 15 AfDs (also in very controversial areas), and also accused others of being socks, accurately, as it turned out.


 * Neither account has more than about 50 edits. My inclination is not to disclose the account names here, but can I ask for counsel about these instances, as good examples for when I notice similar accounts in the future? That is, am I right to be concerned about such behavior and, if so, is there any real alternative to playing the sleuth, which is, of course, very time-consuming? Thanks again, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Koakhtzvigad
is engaged in Wikilawyering, filibustering, and IDONTHEARYOU behavior on the talk pages of several articles related to the Israel–Palestine conflict. His latest shtick is that he won't abide by the community consensus that was developed pursuant to WP:ARBPIA2.

Among the pages in question are Israel and the apartheid analogy and African-American – Jewish relations.

I would like some uninvolved administrators to review the talk pages of those articles and see whether there's a problem. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The place where attention is most needed is at Talk:African-American – Jewish relations It appears that Koakhtzvigad is planning to edit war on the terminology used in this article to refer to occupied territories:
 * "Your support is irrelevant. The sources provided are unreliable. All I have said is a matter of historical fact. I'll be returning to revise the sources." Koakhtzvigad (talk) 06:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Previous discussions have led to the accepted terminology for occupied territory given at WP:WESTBANK. Other editors on the talk page have been urging him to follow this convention. Koakhtzvigad has been rejecting this advice, and the strong tone of his answers may be what caused Malik to post the matter here for review. EdJohnston (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * EdJohnston, you are wrong, on several counts. I suggest you read WP:WESTBANK. As for "other editors", there was one, and not very helpful.


 * Malik Shabazz - this is a long statement.
 * "Wikilawyering, filibustering, and IDONTHEARYOU behavior"!!! - Excuse me for breathing Malik Shabazz! My invitation to discuss on the Talk:African-American – Jewish relations was answered by this submission, which is the Wikipedia equivalent of a court! So who is WikiLawyering?
 * Filibustering? Gee, would that be like in politics (...whereby a lone member can elect to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a proposal)? But as I recall this is a practice that is used to prevent change, and here you are attempting to prevent me editing an article, through initiating a groundless AN/I. Can you pick the filibusterer here?
 * IDONTHEARYOU behavior? I can't hear you, but could read you, IF you were making a point. However, you use TL DR, and not me. In the case with Talk:African-American – Jewish relations, you refuse to participate in the discussion you initiated!. Instead you shoved the Naming_conventions_(West_Bank) in front of me, which in fact doesn't deal with the case in point - i.e. a specific reference to Israeli occupation of the territory following the cessation of the 1967 war. Did you happen to read that naming convention? I'll quote it here


 * 5) When discussing specifically the administrative area of Judea and Samaria, in the context of that administration and not merely referring to a specific land area, the term "the administrative area of Judea and Samaria" or Judea and Samaria Area (with the last word capitalised as here) may be used, subject to clause 6 below, namely that it cannot be used without qualification as though it is the NPOV position.. So you started AN/I because I didn't put in the words "the administrative area of"? This is what you just couldn't discuss in the talk?
 * I have news for you. Saying that I won't follow the WP:Naming conventions (West Bank) as community consensus that was developed pursuant to WP:ARBPIA2 is WikiLawyering - i.e. you seem to know WikiCASELAW better than the subject matter of the article in question. (Israel and the apartheid analogy has absolutely NOTHING to do with this, and I hadn't edited there for about a week)
 * The above consensus decision was based on "The underlying naming issue is the use of the names "Judea", "Samaria" and "Judea and Samaria" for the southern, northern and entire West Bank respectively as general geographical identifiers or toponyms." geographical as I pointed out in the talk page, but you exhibited IDONTHEARYOU behavior, replying with a threat.
 * What I am editing is the historical fact that after 1967 (the context of the relevant text in the article) Israel introduced military administration of the area, and that military administration used Judea and Samaria as the administrative region names. It is a fact recognised in numerous official documents, including those by the Palestinian Authority after the 1993 Oslo Accords. It can not be changed by Wikipedia censorship, because if this is done, it would constitute editing not of articles, but of pseudohistory. Wikipedai does not censor history, only records it.
 * It seems to me that Malik is trying to make the purpose of Wikipedia something it is not by attempting to erase parts of Arab-Israeli conflict history. His editor conduct seems to me to be questionable due to assumptions of bad faith, harassment (though AN/I), disruptive point-making (claiming I'm POV-pushing), and gaming the system (i.e. using administrative procedures). Malik has declined to participate in the Wikipedia editorial process that encourages discussion in the first instance. Common sense would suggest that naming conventions are still subject to the content context, and not the reverse, yet this seems to have escaped Malik's notice. This is not the first time that Malik displayed a lack of Good faith and disruption of my editing, but every time he was invited to discuss, he evaded doing so. Malik Shabazz is simply disrupting the editing process without actively participating in one, seemingly because he is "too busy", but not busy enough to disrupt others. While he has used his administrative privileges to good effect in the past, it seems he is also given to occasional unjustified pursuit of editors he doesn't agree with.Koakhtzvigad (talk) 08:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've had the displeasure of dealing with this user at the Israeli apartheid article. What we have here has been seen a million times, and will be seen am million more times; someone armed with "the truth" is bound and determined to bend articles towards his/her preferred version of events.  Israel-Palestine, global warming, the Troubles, American politics, whatever the hot-button topic is, they're there to fight the good fight. Tarc (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there something relevant to the subject of the AN/I that you would like to express? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have clashed with this editor on B'Tselem, where he has edit-warred in an attempt to insert original research based on his own unsubstantiated interpretation of a list of the ethnic origins of people based on their names. Both there and on other articles he has adopted a highly confrontational approach, posting long and legalistic texts to talk pages, exhibiting IDHT behaviour, belittling the contributions of other editors, arguing that Wikipedia rules should not apply to him and other disruptive editing. And I note that, in response to Malik's 78-word submission above, Koakhtzvigad posted a 712-word rebuttal, accusing Malik of TLDR! This editor should receive a clear warning that he is bound by the same Wikipedia rules as the rest of us regarding edit-warring, original research and civility, and that breaches will lead to sanctions. RolandR (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Koakhtzvigad, I did express something relevant to the subject of the ANI; you are a problematic editor. Tarc (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Per User talk:Koakhtzvigad this editor has already been notified under WP:ARBPIA, and was blocked on 7 January at WP:AN3 for violating 1RR on an I-P article. Since there is no hint of any change in his attitude, and all we see here is a bombastic defence of his position with no hint that he will follow consensus, the way is clear for an admin who was so inclined to issue a sanction under WP:ARBPIA. To help you form an opinion on this, I recommend clicking the diff links provided above by RolandR. EdJohnston (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * From User:Koakhtzvigad (editing from mobile - no password to account on hand) I am fascinated how issues completely irrelevant to the question at hand are brought out to try and "pile on" supposed vices to enact a block, to prevent me from editing, the reason why Wikipedia is here.
 * RolandR, as I patiently explained before, the list came from B'Tselem's website, and since Israelis are not allowed to enter the Palestinian territories, and the names were obviously Arabic, there is virtually a 100% probabalility they are in fact residents of the Palestinian territories. However, evenually consensus was achieved, wasn't it? And, what is the point of bringing up an article where I hadn't edited for at least two weeks (even on talk)? I was blocked over the 1RR at the time because having never been blocked before I was unaware of the definition of editing, thinking it only involves creative contributions to article - something I am trying to do despite this event.
 * Tarc, I am only problematic to you because I do not support the views you hold on certain subjects. However, the subject here is the editing of African-Americans criticism of Zionism, and more specifically in the immediate period after the 1967 war . Do you have something to contribute to that? If you felt I was "problematic" before, why did you wait until now to express this?
 * EdJohnston, I know how this works. BECAUSE I have a previous "WikiCONVICTION", I should be shot now to spare the expanse of the trial :) However, my "bombastic defense" is based on trying to get the editors, namely Malik, to abide by the Arbitration decision! That decision was to define West Bank as a geographic toponym. I pointed this out in talk without bothering to use fancy WP:thisWP:that links, but Malik failed to listen.
 * "the way is clear for an admin who was so inclined to issue a sanction under WP:ARBPIA" - you are actually inciting somone to block a contributing editor because you don't like his attitude? And what attitude should I have? Is wanting to edit in Wikipedia not enough anymore? Have you never before encountered editors that defend their position based on actual sources? The particular section in question is poorly sourced (article dealing with 17th century used to support events post-1967), and that is not my fault. My "fault" seems to be in attempting to edit the contents to reflect events in question rather than go along with Malik's belief in what it should say. And it was he that labled me a "POV-pusher", which seems to be OK by Wikipedia civility standards.
 * Now I see that RolandR and Malik are both on the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, and Malik made a pledge to be cool, yet the four of you, insead of collaborating are fishing for a block (any excuse will do), and Malik went to AN/I at a drop of a hat! I can only suggest that you may need to review WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration Koakhtzvigad (talk) 08:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 58.178.163.234 (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Uninvolved admin comment: There seems to be quite enough diffs presented here to substantiate concerns, given the special emphasis on collaboration in WP:ARBPIA, but I am myself not familiar enough with the area to feel comfortable taking action. I would like to suggest that, unless another unvinvolved admin chooses a more active response, this may be a matter for Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So its all about number of diffs? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's about the content of the diffs, which are offered in sufficient number to demonstrate a pattern. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A pattern for what? I suppose you would need to read the discussions, but my participation in those articles was largely based on the inadequacy of the sources used, and the terms use due to those sources, something particularly important in international law. I was also concerned about the relevance of the reference provided in those articles. despite their quantity. The block I received for breaching 1RR was based on my misunderstanding of what that meant, and not on the intention to edit-war. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The pattern of behavior described above. I have read the conversations. Whatever provocation you may feel you are dealing with, your manner in those conversations has not been in keeping with the principles of behavior emphasized at ARBPIA. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is decorum held higher then the quality of the articles? It seems to me I was not uncivil to anyone, but was strongly insistent on upholding higher standards of editing because of the more controversial subject area. It seems to me that half the problems in this subject-are are due to the low standards of applying terminology and sourcing references.
 * Than be as it may, if my decorum is the issue, with all this talk about good faith and discussion, how does it go from me editing, to Enforcement in two swift steps? I can't help but think that there is a behind-the-scenes agenda that has nothing to do with stated Wikipedia policies. You just recommended Enforcement request although that says "ArbCom decisions are the last stop of dispute resolution.". In other words, in the case of Content disputes (Malik Shabazz's case), there has been no:


 * talk page discussion
 * informal mediation
 * formal mediation
 * Requests for Comments
 * and, while there are no breaches of existing sanctions by me,


 * AN/I followed immediately, with a recommendation for
 * enforcement
 * So, exactly what happened to not making points or the much vaunted continuance to discuss the matter?Koakhtzvigad (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * First, I have no intentions of bickering with you. I'm an uninvolved administrator; I've looked at the conversations, and I agree with those who have found your behavior problematic. This has already gone to arbitration; the point of enforcement policies is to prevent having to go through it over and over again. You have been pointed to the arbitration decision and are already logged as on notice there. That decision, which you are expected to have read from your first warning, explains the decorum that is expected in working in this area, which is essential to keeping the project running smoothly. Combative behavior in such contentious areas can grind the project to a standstill. I recommend the AE noticeboard as the administrators who volunteer there are more accustomed than the administrators who volunteer here to weighing behavior with respect to those decisions and responding appropriately, which may include "civility patrol", bans, blocking or any number of other possible remedies. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I need to think about whether to bring this to WP:AE. In the meantime, I'll mark this resolved. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The Curious Case of Eunice Sanborn
I'm in the midst of an interesting conundrum at Deaths in 2011. Eunice Sanborn, who up until a short while ago was the world's oldest living person, has passed on. The source included at Deaths in 2011, and indeed all current media outlets reporting the death, state her age as 115. However, our article on Sanborn lists her age as 114. I have noted at Talk:Deaths in 2011 that we need to reflect what the sources are saying, and if there is a discrepancy then it needs to be noted in the Sanborn biography article. Unfortunately I have been repeatedly reverted when trying to match the age to the source. The issue is compounded by the fact that Deaths in 2011 is linked from the mainpage and is highly visible, and we currently have her age listed as 114 with a supporting source titled "World's oldest woman dies aged 115". --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do any sources list her birth date? Guiness World Records lists the same date as WP—and simple math is not OR, so we're right. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  21:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Found the issue: AFP writes: "While an organization which tracks and verifies supercentenarians listed Sanborn's age as 114, her family claims the US Census Bureau erroneously recorded her birth year as 1896 rather than 1895." We need to note this on her article and Deaths in 2011. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  21:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) The media sources all say that the family reports her age as 115 (they claim the US Census Bureau is erroneous) and the headlines all state her age as 115. Perhaps the Deaths in 2011 page should read "114 or 115" with further explanation at the article page? The reason I've brought this here is 1) the high visibility of the page and 2) the fact that our info contradicts what is being reported in media sources. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, go ahead and try that ... :) / ƒETCH COMMS  /  22:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do be careful, though; the subject is going through arbitration now, and the last thing we need is more heat in that area. I'm tempted to make some very sarcastic but true remarks, but I'll hold back and just say that the "D" part may surprise you if your sources don't match the GRG's views (but if they do, everything will be just fine). The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 03:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Panic! at the Disco or Pablo's at the Disco?
Someone just redirected the first to the second. Does anyone here have a clue as to whether that's valid or is merely vandalism? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems like a hoax to me, though I'm not up on what the kids are listening to these days. We were the only place that included this claim. I marked Pablo's at the Disco as db-hoax. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've asked for an indef of and a school-year block for his IP  ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Phooey, we might have been able to delete Panic! at the Disco as G8. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 04:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Crimes against humanity is not a speedy criteria :/ Rehevkor ✉ 05:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for RfC close
Not strictly an admin function, but could someone close this RfC: Talk:Gokkun? It's old and has gone fallow, but it would be worthwhile to have decision one way or the other (or no consensus). It's long and was contentious, and thanking in advance anyone who volunteers to do this. Herostratus (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Bueller? Bueller? Anyone? Herostratus (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked at doing a non-admin close, but chose not to. I think it's pretty clearly no consensus.  I personally think the right answer is to find a better picture.  But that too will be gross as heck. Hobit (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't blame you (for choosing not to). And I would suspect a no consensus close would be most likely - it's about tied by headcount, with a reasonably large sample, granting that headcount isn't everything. But please, would someone do it? I can't, since I participated, and it needs doing. Herostratus (talk) 07:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

editor User:Intermittentgardener refuses to justify edits and just edit wars
A little while ago I raised an issue at this noticeboard about this user who refuses to justify a reinsertion of texts at Independent Payment Advisory Board which have been seriously challenged. The editor continually reinserts the texts. For instance here, here, here, here, here, and here, The editor accepts that I have explained why I have deleted the texts but says only that my explnations were "incoherent" and has so far refused to justify his or own reasons for inserting the texts. The editor has unfortunately re-emerged and begun inserting the offending texts yet again.

I have checked the edit history of this user and it is very typical of accounts created for sockpuppetry. The early edits are nearly all inconsequential edits moving texts around via cut and paste (sometimes in different edits) and slightly rewording. Hardly any of the edits had any meaningful impact on the content of Wikipedia until the editor began editing this article and its predecessor. I have not checked if the editor was the original source of the edits that I have challenged, but his or her editing behavior for trying to reinsert them after I deleted them leaves me to think that they may have been. I have been challenged several times about my suspicion of sockpuppety at this article and asked to raise a formal complaint. I have trouble doing so because the complaint procedure requires me to name another user as the so called sockmaster but I have no idea who that may be. Notwithstanding this, the editing behavior of this editor is unacceptable and I ask that an edit ban be imposed to prevent its continual use.Thanks. Hauskalainen (talk) 10:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Admin misusing rollback
If I'm not mistaken, administrators are held to the same standards as non-admins and are bound to the proper use of rollback. has frequently misused rollback (,, , , and most recently ). While the later two fall under "To revert edits in your own user space", in the other diffs Stephen has not shown understanding of rollback and continues to misuse it when undoing good faith changes. Is this a cause for concern, or does this happen everyday? Goodvac (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I couldn't see the third diff, but really, rollback (by my understanding) should only be used for vandalism not to make reverts in userspace easier. That's what "undo" or TWINKLE's "rollback" buttons are for.  But the first two, they strike me as being a misuse of rollback.  The second one is clearly a misuse cause the article proves what profession that person works in.  Recommend a stern warning and then removal if it continues. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 10:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Removal of what? You can't remove rollback from an admin without desysopping. Pedro : Chat  10:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Rollback can be used to make reverts in one's own userspace - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I said, it was by my understanding. I never use it for userspace stuff. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 10:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What gives with the first diff - something can't have stayed as a "db" since 2007; what am I misreading? Pedro :  Chat  10:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The examples of this in article space do, at face value, seem to be using rollback where a regular undo would be more appropriate. I'd suggest to Stephen that he take more care with this tool in the future (and, of course, to leave edit summaries). However, I don't see any discussion of this on Stephen's talk page - it would have been better to have (politely) raised it there in the first instance and only escalated to this forum if it had proved necessary. Including diffs in an ANI report of actions which you yourself say is not a violation of any policy is also rather pointless. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The article was deleted in 2007, history restored in 2010 and the last edit with the db tag was reverted. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  10:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nick, it was raised at Stephen's talk page, but he reverted that too (here) - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The first one (Spira) was me restoring an article after 3 years or so, and then reverting the tag that had been applied 3 years earlier. The second was reverting an edit warring user who had just been blocked for a legal threat.  The third was a slip to revert a speedy tag by Goodvac.  The fourth and fifth were reverts to my user space which are specifically allowed, (the fifth being reverting a warning by Goodvac for an error which I hadn't realised.) Apologies to all concerned, I will endeavour to avoid my finger slippage in the future.  Stephen 11:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "My finger slipped": classic defense ;) -- &oelig; &trade; 11:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So, nothing more to do here, right? This can just be archived? NW ( Talk ) 14:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Finger slippage is well within administrative discretion. Thincat (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Finger slippage occurred only when you were viewing my edits? Quite odd, but I'm willing to let this go. Feel free to close this discussion. Goodvac (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not reviving this; just a note about a discrepancy in Stephen's statements: when I queried about the reversion of the speedy tag, Stephen did not say that it was a slip. Here he admits that it was. Goodvac (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Noted. Let the record state that there was a discrepancy. Can we move on now? ;) -- &oelig; &trade; 21:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Editor making personal attacks and engaging in sockpuppetry
Earlier, an IP address blanked reliably-sourced information from the article Jash, and I reverted the unexplained blanking. Later, an account that rarely edits shows up on the talk page, asks why the sourced content should not be blanked, and then makes a personal attack against me calling me an "Islamophobe". It's fairly evident to me that the account and the IP are the same person engaging in sockpuppetry. The account has been contributing to Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed, including adding a photo of a corpse, and the IP has been doing the same. The editor appears to be regularly logging in and out while editing, directly in violation of WP:SOCK. The account has existed since 2005, yet he claims just the other day he's "still learning how to use Wikipedia . Can a checkuser look into this? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the rights or wrongs of editors, this 'article' is a rather dubious specimen. Frankly, I'd say it should be deleted. Modern Kurdish slang, and a citation from the Battle of Badr (624 AD)? What the....? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I prodded it. We'll see if that sticks. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It didn't stick. It was already prodded once before. If you want to delete it, send it to AfD. The citation is from a book, not the battle itself. Oh, and thanks a lot for actually looking at the sockpuppetry and personal attacks. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies for not seeing the previous prod. I'm not an administrator, so I don't have much to say about the conduct issue. In the meantime, Articles for deletion/Jash exists now and is the proper place for the content discussion. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * AndyTheGrump, thank you for finally sticking to the topic and mentioning the inconsistency of the article. I tried several times to communicate this to Burpelson but he could not answer me what the Battle of Badr had to do with Kurdish women. As for me still learning how to use Wikipedia even though I've been registered since 2005. It's simple, I've been registered since a long time but I rarely make edits except when I see possible attempts to falsify information. As for Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed photo already existed in the Arabic version, I added it in the English version but after discussion with other editors they decided it was best to remove it because it was graphic and I totally agree with them. Please stop trying to make me look bad by bringing up unrelated topics. Now please for the n'th time, explain to us what the Battle of Badr has to do with Kurdish women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebutterfly (talk • contribs) 12:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Since nobody is going to block this abusive sockpuppeteer I'm going to respond as I see fit. And maybe the Pro-Islamic POV Warrior should ask his questions of the person who wrote the book that sentence is sourced from. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Blame Israel (Meme) AfD discussion getting nasty
Not pointing fingers, but I think some uninvolved admins. are needed to intervene at this AfD. There is some back story regarding the author of this article and other editors over articles related to Israel & Palastine. But I don't want to be involved anymore with this because its now gotten more nasty and complex. Though, my AfD nomination still stands. Phearson (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This looks like a job for Ironholds-- SPhilbrick  T  02:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The Afd has to run it's course...the best way to deal with any deletion is to state your rationale based on policy as much as possible and disengage from prolonged back and forth arguments. That Afd doesn't appear nearly as nasty as some others I have seen.--MONGO 03:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Mongo, Extra Eyes needed indeed. Nothing quite blockable yet though that coul deteriorate quickly. If any thing does cross the line WP:AE may be the most appropriate venue as this is I/P territory The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I may have commented prematurely as this comment is certainly unacceptable and needs admin attention, but this is spillage from the afd battle..--MONGO 03:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, if anyone really wants to start howling for revenge over this, well there are plenty of potential victims. I name no names ( well, not directly ;-) but may I ask for administrator restraint at this point? I could be wrong, but indications seem promising to me at the moment for going forward at the AfD without an absolutely toxic amount of drama. Besides, much of the sturm und drang might have been avoided if I'd chosen my own words more carefully in the first place. I'm certainly partly to blame for that, and my astrologer tells me this is a most inauspicious week for me to be blocked. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 07:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Can I point out that the comment I made (linked above) was on my talk page? If Mbz1 actually wishes to raise this in an appropriate place, he of course can, but his drawing attention to it by linking it himself on the AfD seems to be intended more to reinforce his 'martyrdom', rather than over real concerns over a few ambiguous asterisks. I think given the context, I'd be able to offer a strong defence in any case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ambiguous? I see no ambiguity. I also think that if a quote by a third party is used, a summary of why such a quote was used and by whom it is from to provide context is not out of the question...though I would have refrained from making comparitive summaries as Mila did.--MONGO 12:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, given the context, I'd say a bit of exasperation is not unexpected. I would to if another user dismissed a reliable source in such a manner as mbz1 did, comparing the journalist to terrorists and antisemites. Tarc (talk) 05:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Further to this, can I point out that I started out by suggesting that there was actually an element of truth in the article/essay that Mbz1 produced: I had been trying to make the point to him that he wasn't doing himself her that she wasn't doing herself any favours by treating any criticism as further evidence for this premise. I think that at least in part this is a language problem - Mbz1 himself states that English isn't his her first language, and much of the problem seems to be down to him her being unable to distinguish fair comment from what he she sees as personal attacks. This is more or less bound to lead to conflict. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's 3:30 in the morning, and as such I do not have my cape. Someone poke me when it's time for closage and I'll write out one of my Longarse Rationales. Ironholds (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 13 more hours until closure. But "Result was Delete" should be all that's necessary for a rationale. -Atmoz (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

<--Since Mbz1 is blocked from posting here on ANI, she can't respond here to criticisms. But let me say in her defense that she is not a native speaker of English, that she is a sincere and passionate advocate for causes she cares about, and that creating a separate section to group her notes on WP policy was probably done with good not bad intentions. But really let's not discuss her here, it really isn't fair since she can't defend herself.betsythedevine (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, I undid mbz1's creation of a response section for herself, as well as the hidden comment instruction to place new !votes in the section above. IMO that is highly inappropriate to do in an AfD discussion, esp as this person is the creator of the article being discussed.  No one's opinions should be made any more or any less prominent than another editors' Tarc (talk) 05:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I collapsed it yesterday morning. It is one of the most bizare attempts to shut down discussion and get the last word in. But then again its the same author who stiched together several WP:NOTNEWS events into this gem The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Banned User:NYScholar returns as IPsock
For the seond or thrid time this banned user has returned as a sock, using the same ISP, making similar comments as those before on Talk:Harold Pinter, , ,. Also follwing a similar editing pattern to that previously used on Harold Pinter and related articles. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Jezhotwells needs to be investigated: the links to "Contributions" between 25 December 2008 and now show him to be "foll[o]wing a similar editing pattern to that previously used on Harold Pinter and related articles", such as the continual filing of reports in WP:ANI after apparently baiting other users. Continual violations of many policies in WP:LOP, including especially WP:OWN, and WP:MOS, including most recently, WP:CT, reveal a greater interest in filing incident reports than in actually improving the articles in question. Please see the current and archived discussion pages of Harold Pinter and related articles for the pattern of abuse and harassment of other editors revealed again above. (There is no possibility of my using e-mail with Wikipedia or Wikipedians, so this is the only way I have of communicating these concerns. Arbitration needs to examine these problems; I will not be able to participate in arbitration, but others can do what is needed to address my concerns about such harassment of other users by Jezhotwells.  Thank you.  --66.66.17.59 (talk) 11:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You were banned as User:NYScholar, and your usual, repetitive mantra of "There is no possibility of my using e-mail with Wikipedia or Wikipedians..I will not be able to participate in arbitration" proves you are NYScholar. So, why do you think you are allowed to edit Wikipedia?  Was your ban lifted?  Why hasn't this IP been blocked? Viriditas (talk) 11:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If you want to bring something to arbitrator attention, use one of the arb pages, possibly the Clerks' noticeboard. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If the wish is to start arbitration proceedings, then our noticeboard would not be an appropriate place as we don't initiate procedures on behalf of others. Arbitration/Requests/Case is where such requests should be placed. Since the IP/possible sock makes it clear they won't do that, at the moment this is the appropriate place to look into the socking question. Dougweller (talk) 11:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion leading to NYScholar's ban is here . Does anyone think the IP is not NYScholar? Dougweller (talk) 12:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If NYScholar wants to appeal his ban, use the clerks' noticeboard or get email access and write to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. If he wants to open a case against another user, Requests/Case has been semi-protected for a long while so he can't post there, but can post a statement to the clerks' noticeboard and ask that it be copied to the requests page.  However, chances of favorable response to something like that are IMHO quite dim.  71.141.88.54 (talk) 13:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at it this is the sock of a banned user and the ip needs to be blocked for a while to shake him off and in the future a quicker response with less recognition might be better. - Off2riorob (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's fairly obvious that and  were also NYScholar. Jayjg (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Request block for User:Targetprice
User Targetprice keeps editing the article InNexus Biotechnology to add "TARGETPRICE $3.85 FEBRUARY 2011" throughout the article (examples, , , , ).

It is likely the same person who was doing similar edits as 74.58.0.168.

User Targetprice was issued a warning yesterday for such edits, but still spammed the article today. The IP account has been issued 4 warnings --Svgalbertian (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Kinu beat me to it. Obvious spam is obvious. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat
ERROR! has threatened legal action on 's userpage against any admin who blocks him on his userpage. An IP saw that and replaced the page with db-attack. The legal threat is here. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked and reverted by various editors.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless it has been oversighted, I can't see where Bananaeaters posted anything to Kroeger579 (or vice versa). Not like it matters, though, Bananaeaters was clearly a vandalism-only account. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 04:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It wasn't oversighted, it was posted to the userpage instead of the talkpage. Since there were no previous edits on the page, it was deleted to restore the status quo. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

No source... no edit.
Okies this is really simple... I'm fed up of telling stop changing genres without sources. Its almost as if he/she doesn't pay attention. He/she has been given a number of stern warning and has been blocked several times for vandalism. I think its too many strikes, this one is a defo case of WP:IDHT. --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk]  20:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note since filing the report, Mariahicky made a further unsourced change here and upon being informed that he/she had been reported to administrator, he/she even tried to blank the ANI. --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk]  20:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And since my last post here he/she has received a further warning from another user. --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk]  23:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Were there sources for the genres before the editor started changing them? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope. Its a regular pattern e.g. adding Hip-Hop to Mariah Carey articles, randomly adding R&B to articles etc. --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk]  02:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at that article, it doesn't look like any of the genres are sourced, at least not in the infobox. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In which case, if they're articles I personally edit a lot or put work into I usually blank the genre field in the infobox. I am aware that other users (especially in the Mariah Carey field) tend to put the genres from her article page (R&B, Pop). --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk]  02:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Equally that doesn't justify his/her attempt to blank the ANi report. By all means if Mariahicky wished to make a point they were invited to the discussion and hence was welcome to come and comment here... --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk]  02:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The user has been around since the fall of 2009, and has also been warned numerous times. This can't be a newbie mistake. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Give a final warning, if still continues, indef it. The account is pure disruptive. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 03:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat at RFP
I just wanted to point out this edit, which I'm fairly sure is a legal threat. I'm also wondering if we should revdel it out for exposing personal info. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 22:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you notified the other person of this discussion, or in fact even discussed their edits with them?  Corvus cornix  talk  22:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I just left them a note about it. Anyway, I wanted to bring it up here to see what others thought of it. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 22:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Block as a clear legal threat. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 22:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the RFPP request was denied. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 22:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Denied by me. The editor simply "threatens" to make a "formal legal request". It isn't inappropriate to state that you intend to make a formal request if you perceive that libel has taken place and won't cease. The editor has received a sufficient warning on his talk page; that's what the uw-legal warning template is for. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

In any case, somebody needs to explain to this user about our article ownership policy, as that company does not have any ownership rights to the article (as shown here. –MuZemike 23:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was just recently reminded that one of my early edits was on an AfD I read about on somebody's blog, and I had no idea that my !vote was not a fully legitimate vote and no conception of the community rules that make WP:CANVAS a good idea. IMO he is busting our rules because he doesn't know them, so an explanation is a good idea. betsythedevine (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The user has been blocked for 48 hours as a sockmaster, after two more accounts were created by the company for the purpose of legal blustering. See Sockpuppet investigations/Mariliisha. The other two accounts have been indef blocked. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:BITE? betsythedevine (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocks are to prevent damage to wikipedia, and preventing damage is more important than whether a newbie feels "bit". He can use the downtime to study the rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, BB, that makes sense. I'm still learning too -- so thanks for not biting me. betsythedevine (talk) 04:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

A possible COPYVIO at Israeli animal spy conspiracy theories
I noticed what I considered a clear example of plagiarism from the Washington Post in this article, removed it, and explained why. User:Mbz1 has repeatedly reinserted it, despite further explanation from me on the article talk page Talk:Israeli_animal_spy_conspiracy_theories. Can someone else please sort this mess out before I throttle the cat or something?

To be absolutely clear about this, the Post has this phrase in an article: "...pointed to the Mossad shark and other Arab conspiracy theories as an example of..." , and our article has exactly the same wording. This is unattributed, and thus a copyright violation. The whole thing could have been dealt with by a simple paraphrasing, but Mbz1 seems not to understand policy, and why this is necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe take this to Copyright_problems/2011_February_1? That would have the further advantage that Mbz1 could also post comments there... betsythedevine (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Related issue reported here --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless the article is blanked, probably best to take it to Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. Nobody reviews those listing pages until a week after they're opened. :) But we can also carry it over to User talk:Mbz1. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't need to carry it over anywhere. I've evaluated, and the provenance of the quote is blatantly obvious, since the contributor who placed the text ( User:Mbz1) initially did so in quotation marks and cited to The Washington Post . Here is the point when that properly attributed quote was turned into plagiarism, by another contributor who I guess did not realize that the whole sentence was copied. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So why not just restore the quotation marks then? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I just got here. :) She chose instead to restore the plagiarized version and deny that The Washington Post was the source. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why use second-hand quotations at all? Do we really want a quote from the Washington Post used as a source for a quote from the WSJ? This is messy, and unnecessary when the original can be found without too much difficulty. The use of the Post quote in the first place looks like laziness, or a misunderstanding of how to source things properly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hold up The user has stated (s)he is banned from ANI? is this some sort of miscommunication or what? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As a condition of lifting the latest indef block, yes, ANI is off-limits. Tarc (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of that, obviously. It seems a peculiar thing to do. Is she not even permitted to reply when she is referred to? If that is the case, then should we not take this elsewhere? I have no wish to deprive her of the right to respond. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's already elsewhere. As you requested, I am explaining the issue to her at her talk page. There are also notes at the talk page of the article and at the EW listing, to which she can respond. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume there is some baggage I am missing here but it seems person should at least have the right to respond when the hits their page unless they are under a block. Stopping some one from posting Frivolous complaints or agitating situations they're uninvolved in is one thing but preventing them from defending themselves? Crosses the line of reasonable editing restrictions in my book. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Can I say I agree with ResidentAnthropologist. Though I'm still not exactly happy with Mbz1's response (she owes more than one editor an apology for name-calling), it does seem somewhat unjust not to have let her respond here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Megadittos. I'm disturbed to hear that there are users who can be talked about at ANI, but who aren't allowed to participate. That's a decision that needs rollback. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 03:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It was done because they were making lots of frivolous complaints here and constantly stirring the pot. Their block log may shed some light on the prolonged nature of issues with this user, this was a "last chance, and I mean it this time, not like the other fifteeen last chances you got" compromise that they agreed to abide by. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Info Mbz1 was blocked and then banned over a single post she added on AN/I in the thread that was started not by her, and over a single SPI request. Somebody claimed she filed a frivolous AE request, but it was not a frivolous request because the user the request was concerning about was topic- banned less than a month later. Broccolo (talk) 06:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/98.247.253.129
Not really sure what can be done about unregistered users making vandalism. Check this guy out and let me know where I can find more info about this. I got a little lost in the admin/warn/block pages when I was trying to figure out what to do. Thanks! Udeezy (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:Revert, block, ignore covers it nicely. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's helpful. So I've got the revert part down. How would one block an unregistered user (all I've seen has to do with registered users who have been warned, etc.)? And then I assume that ignore is just literally ignoring them, not an actual thing that needs to be done? Udeezy (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You would report them at WP:AIV, where an admin would either block for a while or say "not currently vandalizing, come back later".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Incivility blocks
In light of recent events, I'm going to start blocking for incivility - something I don't normally do. This will be a contentious decision, I know, but my mind is made up. What lengths do other admins currently use for this sort of thing? Is a 12 hour block the standard? Is there a 'gradual scale', as with 3RR blocks - 24,48,1 week etc? Thoughts welcome. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Usually about a half hour, then a right thinking admin makes the unblock.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Generally it depends on the degree to which you dislike your victim. Some admins start with 10-second blocks and work up from there. In fact it isn't even necessary that your victims are actually incivil, just that you claim they are. Malleus Fatuorum 20:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and if you're looking to block or otherwise sanction someone for questioning authority, remember that revenge is a dish best served cold. Also, IRC is your friend. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I've only seen one or two people ever get blocked for incivility, but I've seen many have their blocks extended or indef'ed, and then have talk page access revoked because of incivility. ... Is it possible to revoke talk page access without blocking them? There've been a few users I've seen that that'd help ("Oh, I was never warned about that... More than 4 times... On more than five occasions... By three people..."). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about big incivility - long rants attacking a user personally, disruption-style stuff, even repeatedly using edit summaries such as "reverting: your edit, while well meant, was fucking awful and you're a shit editor". Not blocking for this tiny stuff people complain about - that's best handled by a cup of tea. The concept of block of less than 12 hours is rather worrying, to be honest. I'd never make one of those. Malleus, in good faith - and because I honestly want your opinion on this - can I ask you what sort of incivility would be appropriate for, say, a 12 hour block? Direct it at me if it'll make you feel better :-) Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm neither Malleus nor an admin, but I already have a Reichstag model and a Spiderman action figure: I guess (this is directed at noone) that "bitch-ass smegma-brained cock-sucking father-fucking cunt-faced needle-dicked shit-breath'd piss-blooded cum-saliva'd meekrab" would be worth at least 48 hours if it were actually directed at someone. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If I ruled the world I doubt that I would ever block any editor for incivility, but not for the reasons that so many might think. The incivility would have to be causing a problem for the project somewhere for me to become concerned about it. Simply expressing an unpopular opinion (have I ever told you about the time I was blocked for using the word "sycophantic"?) or asking another another editor to "fuck off" aren't things I'd be worried about. The real reason to block is to prevent whatever damage is being caused to the project by the perceived incivility; very often it's none at all, just some civility policeman sticking his nose in where it's neither necessary nor welcome. Malleus Fatuorum 21:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * With the above comments in mind, how do you folks go about dealing with editor who are consistently rude and abusive, and assume bad faith, even to new editors? Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Depends on whether or not they're an administrator. If they're not then block; if they are, then start making excuses for their behaviour. Malleus Fatuorum 20:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My plan in such situations is to issue three warnings (elaborate, detailed, and personal, not the automated message), a short block, a longer block, and a report (and it hardly ever reaches the "short block" part). That is, of course, if you are not personally involved in the matter... in which case you might want to report it first and let other admins deal with it. But that's just me.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 31, 2011; 20:53 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Serious answers anyone else? I know about the problems we have with incivility blocks, different rules for admins/editors, and the problems we have with incivility, and I'm hoping to come up with a solution. I'm listening to everyone about this - even banned users - because I want something that will work for everyone. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As is readily apparent from the snarky replies here, there has been significant resistance to blocking for incivility, per se. If I were you, I would stick to blocking only for clear and specific violations of WP:No personal attacks.  Anything else is a can of worms best left unopened.  — Satori Son 21:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with that. Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can come up with a way of blocking Jimbo, Arbs, and Admins that will actually stick - well done you. As it is, it is the immunity these people have from being blocked for incivility that makes it so unproductive (to put it kindly) to contemplate blocking anyone else for incivility. DuncanHill (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm hoping to do. One rule for all of us, although either a very simple or very complex one. Either way, I think the final solution should not rely on blocks as an incentive. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If it were a single NPA event, I'd probably block for 24 hours. Since you seem to be talking about persistent incivility in the face of previous warnings, I'd guess 72 hours would be a reasonable place to start. (I haven't looked to see if I can figure out who you mean, I'm just answering from personal experience.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't a 24-hour block for a single occurrence of anything essentially punitive? Arakunem Talk 21:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of degree. A block for "Look, jerkface, learn to spell" would be punitive. A block for "Look, [Carlin], you can take your [Carlin]ing opinions and shove them up your [Carlin], you piece of [Carlin]", would be preventive. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What would it be preventing? Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The block should be more about context and less about the strength of the words used. In your example above, I can envision a scenario where "Look, jerkface, learn to spell" would warrant a block, while Carlin practicing his list would not. It has to be about the effect the incivility (perceived or otherwise) is having on the location where it was placed. If it is about how offended a specific admin is, then we have a problem. Arakunem Talk 22:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't this be at WP:AN (if anywhere at all) ? Where is the "incident"? Where is the urgent admin action? Why are we clogging up this cess-pit of a board even further? From an arb as well - disapointing. Pedro : Chat  20:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Someone (scroll up) said the board needed more drama. In any case, shall we move to AN? Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, always short on drama on ANI.... I'd have thought AN was the most obvious place for this. Pedro : Chat  21:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind a few thoughts from a non-admin. I don't think there's any one rule that can work for incivility, and the only consideration should be whether a block is going to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. Someone being abusive to a newcomer or a content creator and risking driving them away - yes, block (but not punitively - only to get their attention when talking has failed). If someone is rude to an admin, a block should only be appropriate if it is serious or long-term abuse - admins should be able to take a bit of flak (I work partly in online community moderation, and minor abuse is usually just a short term emotional reaction, and is almost always best countered by civility). And as an aside, I think the now near-legendary 10-second block was one of the worst admin actions I've seen here. I don't know who did it (and I don't want to), and I don't apologize for saying so - whoever did it should be prepared to accept honest feedback. Anyway, my main suggestion here is do not go overboard on the civility thing. The faceless nature of online communication leads people to be less civil than they would be face to face, and it can usually be diffused more effectively by civil engagement than by lashing out with punishment -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I got the 10-second block, and the perpetrator is very easily seen in my block log. I doubt you'd be surprised to discover who it was. Malleus Fatuorum 21:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So Malleus, you are a bit of an expert on blocks from the victim's point of view. Did you find over time that you have changed your behaviour to avoid being blocked? Or have you just gone on being your gruff old self? My point being that people are who they are, and don't change much. :) -- Diannaa  (Talk) 21:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * People are either an asset to the community, or they are not. -- Diannaa (Talk) 21:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (Sorry, I obviously cannot answer for Malleus, but I need to point this out): Blocks can actually embitter the blockees and change their behavour and editing mood for the worse. There are ways of calming down angry editors who have just lashed out. Blocking only works in rare cases. Judging from what I've read, it can be a very frustrating experience for regular content contributors who don't push any POV, but occasionally use strong words to make their point. I strongly second everything Boing wrote. I think it's more promising to think about ways to encourage and foster collegiality, rather than figure out ways to sanction incivility. ---Sluzzelin talk  21:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Switch "can embitter" for "do embitter" and we can maybe do a deal. Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I certainly haven't deliberately gone to any trouble to "change my behaviour". Perhaps the worst of the civility police invested in a dictionary and a little common sense. Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sluzzelin that positive reinforcement works better than negative. It can a big investment in time and effort but some contributors will be worth it. The trouble is trying to determine which ones they are, beforehand. -- Diannaa (Talk) 21:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me add to that. One thing I have taken on board is the distinction between NPA and CIV, one that administrators would do well to bear in mind before thinking about civility blocks, which frankly never work and are increasingly less likely to stick. I don't give a monkey's arse if anyone uses a few choice words, it adds colour. But there's a world of difference between saying "fuck off" and "you're a fucking cunt". The first doesn't bother me at all, but the second is unacceptable. Malleus Fatuorum 21:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you expand on the difference? Do you think the difference is clear to everyone who might be on the receiving end of either comment? 67.243.57.182 (talk) 04:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm waiting to see who gets blocked first ... pass the popcorn, please.

But seriously, this isn't going to work. We have RfC/U and ArbCom for a reason. "Incivility" is caused by others who are perceived to either be stupid, annoying, incompetent, a waste of time, or all of these. If users have a problem with each other they can both shut up and stop trying to have the last word. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  21:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The classic admin solution, blame both sides. So much easier, and avoids and of that tedious work. Malleus Fatuorum 21:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't mean blame both sides—I usually find it very easy to figure out who's the one being a real dick. But that doesn't give the other side permission to keep yelling at their stupidity. If someone's being uncivil, why bother responding? / ƒETCH COMMS  /  21:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are quite a lot of people here claiming that incivility isn't an issue. To the wider community outside Wikipedia it quite clearly is an issue. Otherwise letters like these wouldn't be being published by the Economist. If you don't click through below is the key quote (emphasis mine).
 * "Every person I know of who has left provided the same reason, which is that Wikipedia’s rules are enforced selectively, especially the rule that members treat each other in a civil manner. One person said he had been accused of being a “nationalist”, a “racist”, a “POV-warrior”, a “troll”, a “conspirator”, a “sockpuppet” and a “meatpuppet”."
 * It is perfectly possible to engage with people, even people who aren't as knowledgable as you, or even those who are stubborn without being rude, so you can't really complain if you get blocked. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right on that last bit, but it's very possible that the people being accused of all those things was in fact the problematic user. Usually problematic users blame everyone else for getting them blocked. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  22:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think its fair to say that an impartial observer does have to accept that the person was in fact being incivil, and that it was more than borderline. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If we're serious about dealing with incivility, then we have to start by thinking about which approaches have worked and which haven't. We have accumulated a substantial body of evidence over the past several years demonstrating that "civility blocks" and "civility parole" do nothing to make editors more civil, and in fact are often counterproductive. When people continue proposing blocks as a remedy for incivility, I always wonder whether they're ignorant of that body of evidence; whether they're aware of it but interpret it differently than I; or whether they're just not interested in trying to think more deeply about approaches that might actually work (or at least not be actively harmful). MastCell Talk 22:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The difference can be summarised very simply by comparing "that's a pile of crock" with "you're a pile of crock". I'd be inclined to take NPA very seriously, and to discard CIV to the bin of childishness. Malleus Fatuorum 22:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For clarity by civility I mean not making personal attacks - its a good point that there is a difference. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We can't really throw out WP:CIV because it's quite possible to be horribly rude and insulting without actually attacking other editors. We're supposed to be a collaborative project, and driving off other editors by being condescending or rude isn't helping towards that goal. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 23:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You have to throw out your beloved CIV. Every substantial content contributor here knows what an insulting and degrading environment it is to work in, but those responsible for making it so are often the administrators themselves, or the other incessant low-level abusers. Those who work the system in other words. Malleus Fatuorum 23:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I love how it's my "beloved CIV" now. Look, we know you have a grudge against admins as a group. You don't have to bring it up every post. And, as I posted below, I'm not dedicated to keeping CIV as an isolated policy. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 13:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem Chase is that people's definitions of incivility vary (I'm often amazed how much so) and in many circumstances there's no reason to block for that reason alone, given that they are supposed to be preventative rather than punitive. So unless two guys are cursing each other out you'd be hard pressed to say it was required. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is true but people do have to be able to operate in society as a whole (e.g. at work), so surely we should be able to find a reasonable middle ground. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A "reasonable middle ground" might to merge wikipedia's CIV and NPA policies, as the distinction between the two just makes the place look like an arbitrarily run infant's school. Malleus Fatuorum 23:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See, that's where the problem lies. You know it's a good middle ground, and I know it's a good middle ground... but the reason they're split in the first place is people couldn't agree that keeping them together was a good middle ground. Back when policies and guidelines were still being formed, most folks felt it better to keep specific for each one, rather than larger, all-encompassing rules. I doubt we'd get much traction trying to merge them now. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 23:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a choice. Either it tries to embrace change rather than stifle it, or it dies. Right now it's dying. Malleus Fatuorum 00:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't agree, so sorry. I think it's improving, and will continue to do so. There is a lot less dramaz nowadays, for sure, and the quality of the encyclopedia itself is constantly improving.-- Diannaa (Talk) 00:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * One might argue that the reduction in "drama" is an indication that fewer people care. Certainly I've given up caring about what happens at RfA, for example. Malleus Fatuorum 02:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Coment. There has been a debate here Articles for deletion/Muthucumaraswamy Sornarajah that may be relevant to this discussion, continued on talk page of nominator. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC).
 * Not relevant, as it stands. Something off-wiki - a talk about WP:CONTRIB about how tricky it is to introduce new users when we're generally pretty confusing and incivil - provoked me into starting this. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Incivility blocks? Fuck off. Incivility is too much in the eye of the beholder to have individual admins make the call, and that's always what leads to the trouble. As long as we can't figure out some kind of community-based mechanism for enforcing civility, we're not going to be able to tackle it. Obviously this means something less than Arbcom and more than WP:WQA (which in my recent experience is worse than useless), and perhaps a bit easier than WP:RFC/U. One simple approach would be to change policy to explicitly permit punitive civility and NPA blocks, but only if they are pre-endorsed by the community at ANI (or possibly somewhere else if volume becomes an issue). Rd232 talk 01:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Punitive blocks are expressly deprecated, per WP:Block. It follows that preventative blocks should be predicated upon repeated behaviour, with the gamut of warnings being followed. Having said that, "obvious and gross" violations should be met with preventative blocks, but not without the opportunity of the perpetrator stepping back, and cooling down. I agree that in an environment in which some "rough and tumble" may be acceptable, naked abuse just isn't, and, as stated above, the line is different for different editors. Accordingly, I don't see this going anywhere fruitful in the absence of an RFC. Rodhull  andemu  01:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Punitive blocks are expressly deprecated, per WP:Block." - cough. Why do you think I suggested changing policy? (BTW when it comes to that phrase people tend to confuse punishment, which serves a policy purpose, with revenge, which does not.) As for an RFC, how about the current Requests for comment/dispute resolution? Rd232 talk 02:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't assume that my psychic powers are up to full speed when the temperature here is below zero, I have neither eaten nor slept properly for several weeks, and really, I'd rather be somewhere else. Otherwise, thanks for the link, but it doesn't address the issues raised here. Rodhull  andemu  04:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Civility blocks; never. Doesn't help. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Incivility complaints are often, though not always, a distraction from what really matters the most: article content. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There are no rules in wikipedia. It's the wild west of the internet. In the future this time will look antiquated.--scuro (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Our future is ahead of us. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * [responding to Bugs's original comment] Hear hear. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Chaseme, I don't have much problem with the general concept of civility blocks for repeated/egregious offenders, but given your arbitrator's hat I think it's best that you left such blocks to regular admins except possibly in very clear-cut circumstances. Not for any tedious ideological separation-of-powers reasons, but because such disputes tend to find their way to arbcom and it's better to have fewer arbitrators have to recuse. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * hear, hear. (but you are describing one of the desirable attributes of separation of powers) Can we close this, please?  Or can we have an off-topic debate about separation of powers? John Vandenberg (chat) 06:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Consider it closed, see my hatnote at the top. Many thanks for all the input. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 06:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Further discussion might be held at Requests for comment/dispute resolution. Rd232 talk 08:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It would be nice if there were administrators willing to actually do something to make this a cordial place to edit. Far too many playing games with people and trying to excuse away disruptive users behaviour while their behaviour drives good content contributors away from the encyclopedia. Block often and long.--Crossmr (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I go more with disruptive myself - rather than incivility as such. People can be bloody rude without being disruptive and vice versa. It's all a matter of context. Fainites barley scribs 22:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Trolling of sandbox
Could use some suggestions on dealing with an IP hopping troll that repeatedly posts to the Sandbox, claiming in the edit summary "Administrative Edit - Please don't revert", and claiming the sandbox to be closed for technical reasons, and that users should instead experiment on other pages - also using a fake signature on the notice. example (one of many). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is definitely a case of WP:RBI. I would start at a week. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 05:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Would a rangeblock work here? I am not completely sure how they work, but it looks possible. Airplaneman   ✈  06:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a fairly large range - but a scan shows no other recent users, so a short-term range block may work to discourage them for now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like they've gotten bored. If they return under the same range, a short rangeblock sounds good. Airplaneman   ✈  07:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I had already done the short-term range block after my post above; sorry, I should have mentioned that I was implementing it. --- Barek (talk) - 17:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I can do a couple of rangeblocks there, but not much longer than what Barek originally had, though. –MuZemike 07:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just came across and the affiliated . Look like we should not allow the latter to just change their user name. Favonian (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And . Rangeblockers to the rescue! Favonian (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like no additional disruption in almost two hours from the two ranges involved. If it starts again, can investigate range blocks again at that point. Correction: It looks like another admin re-applied the range blocks already about two hours ago. --- Barek (talk) - 00:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

confirmation/second-guessing a block I made
Hey admins,

I blocked after their first edit, as it looked very WP:DUCK to me: it's similar to the username they edited on (, no stranger in these parts), and it was 10 minutes after an identical edit by another SPA-type user (1, 2).

Another user (who I respect), quite rightly called me out for the quick block. So I'm bringing it here- I'm looking for feedback. Obviously, this means I won't wheel-war if someone wants to overturn my block.

I'm not posting ANI-notice to Duke2323; if it's a new editor, they shouldn't have to figure out the machinations involved with ANI, especially as a blocked user. tedder (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ the following are the same:
 * TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 18:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks- I didn't mean to fish for it, but it certainly resolves any guilt I had about the quick block. tedder (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 18:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks- I didn't mean to fish for it, but it certainly resolves any guilt I had about the quick block. tedder (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Nice work, Tedder, right up until the "<I><U>no stranger in these parts</U></I>" dig. <B><I>Totally unnecessary, but not unexpected</I></B>. Stevie Wonder could have seen the sockpuppet thing happening here, but I read this just the other day: "<I>The allegations of sockpuppets or meatpuppets should and can safely be ignored. They are meaningless and unhelpful."</I>. Cheers. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 18:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm curious if the possibility exists that these are in fact not sockpuppets but different accounts using the same (school) IP address? I agree, though, that it looks a lot like socks. <small title="Click the F">...comments? ~B F izz 01:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Look at the contribs of all 3, which are all 2 or 3 each. 3 new accts, with few edits, make edits to overlapping pages, in several cases identical edits, none that I could see were constructive. It is either a.)1 person with multiple vandal accts or b.)if three separate people on 1 IP, they were obviously working together as meat puppets to troll and vandalize. Either way, does it matter? Either explanation is grounds for blocking, which has been done, case closed.  He  iro  01:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Potential legal threat
Does this edit summary constitute a legal threat ? (in addition to the blatant COI and username violations) Active Banana    (bananaphone  20:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The user has been notified of this discussion Active  Banana    (bananaphone  20:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd say that "we removed it for legal reasons" isn't a threat as such. As you say, there is an obvious COI problem though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm going with "yes" and have blocked this editor. --John (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good block. Definitely qualifies as a legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

216.161.176.112 returns
IP address 216.161.176.112 (Gilbert Public Schools in Arizona) is at it again with some weird vandalism to Mesquite High School (Gilbert, Arizona), which is one of that district's schools. Perhaps an extended block is needed now? He's the only active vandal to that page. Raymie (t • c) 20:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked. In the future, please report at WP:AIV.  Nakon  20:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Worsening talk page abuse at Talk:Aspartame controversy
There are two major current problems at : accusations of conflict of interest and general talk page abuse. The issue of conflict of interest accusations was discussed here (Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive652) and things have gone downhill. Since then, the tone had been maintained by —(accusation, advisory and rejecting AGF)— and —accusation, other disruptive claims. These are cold and the editors are currently inactive. They are mentioned to show the duration of the problem and how the tone was set for other editors who have recently picked up the banner:

accusation and advice accusation and advice — failure to assume good faith

The latter has been flooding the page with claims, but nothing constructive that could ever be used in the article, despite numerous warnings about talk page abuse. Warnings on his page and in response to his posts (see User talk:Novangelis/Archive 1 for diffs and third party involvement) have gone unheeded. It is established that he knows how to ask for help on his talk page even if it is only about concern of who might generate a block, not why. If talk page guidelines had been instilled successfully, we would not have seen a challenge to debate the issue.

He was told that if he wanted to rewrite the article he could do so on his talk page. Instead, he used the article talk page to rewrite a section, then a detailed critique was demanded by Jmpunit, and promptly rejected by Arydberg. As a final example, he posted a conference announcement in French and was told it was not a reliable source. Rather than move on, he reposted it with a machine translation.

The talk page mushroomed to almost 200kB (I just tweaked the archiving gently, so it decreased a bit) with little to show; the useful content is hard to find amid the postings of links followed by explanations of WP:RS, and the accusations followed by WP:TPA/WP:AGF. I'm not going to claim to be a saint. I recognize that I've been curt or even snippy at times and responded on the page (rather than user talk) more than I should have, but no one on the page seems to be able to get basic policies to be followed. The ongoing accusations of COI probably have been contributing to the rejection of the policy advisories—experienced editors are undercut when perceived as "shills". I'm hoping that some outside admin involvement can reign things in. Some semblance of order needs to be restored to the page. Thank you.Novangelis (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Warning left for soapboxing. This is clearly past the acceptable advocacy level here.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe that this page is covered by the Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions, and was preparing to submit this to Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. If GWH's warning suffices, though, I am satisfied and will forbear. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's something I've collected to show the extent of the problem:


 * Articles
 * Aspartame controversy
 * Aspartame
 * Excitotoxicity
 * Monosodium glutamate
 * Water fluoridation controversy


 * User(s)/socks .. (are we actually only dealing with maybe two people)....and EXTREMELY good examples of SPAs
 * TickleMeister's talk page history. Note myriad controversies are hidden because of extremely frequent archiving, IOW what amounts to avoiding the scrutiny of other editors.
 * Blocked
 * Note
 * Soundly rebuffed at MEDRS.
 * TickleMeister's talk page history. Note myriad controversies are hidden because of extremely frequent archiving, IOW what amounts to avoiding the scrutiny of other editors.
 * Blocked
 * Note
 * Soundly rebuffed at MEDRS.


 * Boards, SPIs, discussions
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive652
 * Sockpuppet investigations/TickleMeister/Archive
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-31 Aspartame controversy
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive629

I don't know how much it helps, but it shows where to start digging. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ticklemeister's parting shot is worth noting: I'm taking a very long break from fighting the PR men. In spite of everything, he still assumes bad faith in a blockable manner. I don't think he should be allowed back. Just lock the door. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a response from Arydberg.Novangelis (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If Arydberg's 'goodbye' is genuine, then this thread may have served its purpose. If he returns to continue his previous line of argument at Talk:Aspartame controversy, then a 24-hour block for disruption may be needed. Our article talk pages are not open to endless soapboxing by people who aren't paying attention. EdJohnston (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * After that was deleted, he then repeated it, with more, here. He's basically canvassing for support and hopes that Kingoomieiii will help him. Sigh... A 24 hr. block is far too little. Give him at least a month considering he's been wasting the time of numerous editors for more than that. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * LMFAO! A brilliant reply. Read the whole paragraph. -- Brangifer (talk) 09:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that message wasn't so funny at 3 AM. -- King Öomie  18:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The goodbye was not very durable.Novangelis (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * A number of editors are soapboxing on these articles, pushing a fringe view, which is disruptive. They have also accused other editors of being paid by the manufacturers of Aspartame.  TFD (talk) 05:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * has added to the list of COI accusers with this edit and adds a previously discussed blog link which currently is discussed in its own section on the current active page.Novangelis (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually I accused no one, I cited the fact that Wikipedia is a user based blog and that it would be unusual for there not to be company representatives doing some editing given their product is costing them millions to promote. False or damaging information on Wikipedia happens every day since it is only a objective as it's users. I accused no one. I know of Dr.s on other articles editing wiki blogs that are to do with their subject when in the real world that would be a conflict of interest. As I said , you accept those limitations or you don't but banning users for generally acknowledging it seems, silly. My real crime was discussing my own Asparatame experience. That I admit, not a discussion forum issue even though at the time my blindness from Asparatame felt like it had relevance. Yes, I missed the other link , is that a Wiki crime ? Posting an article  you missed under current discussion ? 98.149.114.34 (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I will respond to this the same way I did to your other, substantively identical post at the article in question. You seem to be drawing a line of acceptability between "Accusing editors of being paid shills" and "Repeatedly insisting there's nothing wrong with accusing editors of being paid shills". This is a distinction I don't recognize. If you insist that you're not accusing anyone, why are you repeating your point? Unless you're implying that there are editors AT THE ARTICLE who are paid shills, it's not relevant to insist "Hey, there are paid shills elsewhere". Your implication is itself an accusation. -- King Öomie  18:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * For the record: When critique was "demanded" by me I was referring to TFD's comment not to Arydberg's. Also I am not a "Sock" nor do I collaborate with anyone else; the link that says "note" refers to a message on Ticklemeister's page which was a response to a message he/she left on my page.  The title of this section should be "Aspartame Controversy: NPOV issues" rather than its present title as many of the editors that are mentioned here including myself (and others) believe that the Aspartame Controversy article is mostly one sided.  When an editor brings a source that could be used in the article that challenges this bias it is immediately shot down in a rude and arrogant way (the talk pages will confirm this).  I and others have even asked that the NPOV tag be placed on the article to reflect this and an edit war began: when one would put the tag up another would take it down.  Many of the users brought up here are frustrated at the lack of cooperation and lack of willingness of others to work together on this page.  I feel this is far more disruptive than the above issues that are mentioned.Jmpunit (talk) 06:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, when the critique was given, you shot back with "Nope" and refused to explain. -- King Öomie  18:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The POV pushing goes on unabated. Can we please do something about this? These WP:SPAs have been disrupting these pages for months now. Yobol (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is exactly the type of behavior I'm talking about. Repeating what I have written in a rude and arrogant way ("For the record") are the types of comments that are made anytime editors are trying to engage in a fruitful discussion of the article at hand.  Furthermore I have a serious concern as to the slanted direction this article (aspartame controversy) takes and continue to attempt the discussion of such issues.  But apparently this is considered disruptive by some.  These allegations are unfounded and thwart the progress of this article. Jmpunit (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you thought THAT was a rude and arrogant turn of phrase, wait until I point "These allegations are unfounded and thwart the progress of this article" back at you in reference to every time you've ever accused us of taking money from a corporation to keep the article as-is. Where do you get off?
 * Your concerns about the article are fine. Your ACTIONS are plainly disruptive. -- King Öomie  04:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * To state that I have accused you and others (several times) of taking money from a corporation to keep this article as-is is a blatant lie and you won't be able to prove this because it NEVER HAPPENED. My point continues to gain weight when you make comments like "Where do you get off?" or ask me did you "ever write an essay in high school?"  This insolent tone needs to stop! Jmpunit (talk) 07:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * To my recollection (and a review of the archives which was not line for line due to the sheer volume), this was the first time that Jmpunit has mentioned paid editing. This editor argues obstructionism (or wikilawyering) after any source is rejected, even in this case where the material was rejected three times on three different RS pages (1, 2, 3). Given that there were enough instances where editors were asked to stop implying that editors are paid on the page at that time, it stretches the limits of AGF to assume that it was just an unfortunate choice of words. The inflammatory nature of the post ("Congratulations on writing a paragraph." and "There is no need to entertain your paranoid rambling...") does not help. Even if it was nothing more than an horridly mistimed exclamation, it illustrates my original point that the pattern of ongoing COI accusations is disruptive to the editing environment and needs to stop.Novangelis (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have checked, you're correct. The only edit from him that would imply that is this, which I will assume is innocent of that accusation (though it has about 15 other problems). I apologize- it must have been the OTHER two highly-active anti-aspartame advocates that called us all paid shills. -- King Öomie  16:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed the article and its references as a (hopefully) impartial - at any rate a new - pair of eyes and left some comments on the talk page. I am not experienced in detecting and dealing with socks so I will have to leave the lists of suspects above to someone who is! <font face="century gothic" color="#0E6E2D">Kim Dent-Brown  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0E6E2D">(Talk)  21:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not forbidden in Wikipedia to bring up the possibility of a COI, especially in controversial matters where a lot of money is involved. All I said was "It makes me wonder about the COI of people here, when they are so faithful towards the food industry." And the reason was that I repeatedly pointed out to food lobby websites, being owned by Ajinomoto, as not a reliable and valid source. Still, some people bring it back every time... Immortale (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "I didn't explicitly call anyone a shill, I just suggested people who disagree with me may be shills. And for kicks, I'll do it here too."  This is appropriate behavior?  Anyone? Yobol (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure re-heating this part of the debate is (1) appropriate use of ANI or (2) useful anywhere, in any case. I propose to mark this topic resolved and would counsel all editors to restrict their contributions to the talk page, and to discussion of the content of the article. <font face="century gothic" color="#0E6E2D">Kim Dent-Brown  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0E6E2D">(Talk)  22:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I would simply ask that the COI accusations and such end. WP:AGF is an important thing. Dbrodbeck (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this should be posted in edit warring?
Not sure if this is the place to post, but have been having issues with the Fastenal page since I updated it with material that does not reflect well upon this company.

Specifically, a lead mention of a worker satisfaction survey has been repeatedly deleted by User:Muhandes, but also by User talk:Sleighty3, who claims to be employed by this company (see my talk page).

I talked to Muhandes about this on his talk page, but he has recently deleted that. I did not engage Sleighty3 as he claimed to be employed by this company.


 * most recent revert

The info. in question should be in lead per NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, as (emphasis my own): "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject."


 * This is a simple dispute between two editors. As I explained in the talk page, which is where this dispute should have been kept, I have already asked for a neutral party in one of the relevant wikiProjects. But it seems Fleetham is lacking the patience and has to run to ANI. So be it, let the big cannons fire. I'd be more than happy if someone here will be willing to have a look as well, though this page is for incidents, not dispute resolution. To set the record straight, I did not "recently delete" the discussion from my talk page, I moved it to the article talk page where it belongs. --Muhandes (talk) 07:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Outside and neutral view Unsourced references to Fastenal operating with "Marxist capital" and the company being known for an "ant supercolony-like" structure, along with unsourced allegations of greenwashing, assertions it only distributes and manufactures as put in by Fleetham aren't very NPOV in my view at all. The "glassdoor.com" survey simply doesn't belong because it gives undue weight to one organization's opinion of a company and in the Reuters article isn't backed up with anything at all beyond the name of the company. I can see how Sleighty3 is very concerned by this article, even if they work there. Furthermore, glassdoor.com seems to be nothing more than a place you can go anonymously and say things about a company you wouldn't tell to the boss (see Fastenal's page on the site), so I am highly dubious that this crowd-sourced site belongs as being cite-able in any way here.


 * The last edit before Fleetham took over the article is although a bit towards the company's view, still much more neutral than what has been added since January 4, and I highly suggest that an administrator go through this one with a fine toothed comb as I am concerned that Fleetham has issues with article ownership and needs to begin cooperating with other editors to neutralize this writing. However, please read WP:DR; this is not at the state of needing emergency resolution and should be taken to another noticeboard rather than this one.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 08:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional comment Per the current discussion on Talk:Fastenal/Archives/2013, Fleetham is continuing to insist that this survey be used in the article even though it has no scientific or factual reliability, and he refuses to engage any of the editors about their concerns, including mine about neutrality. A serious look at this article by an administrator is recommended.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 08:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional additional comment The Glassdoor.com survey of best and worst places to work has been discussed by any number of highly regarded secondary sources, including the NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, and LA Times. Thus it can't merely be brushed off as casually as some would have it. (Disclosure: I don't know anything about Fastenal itself.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The major problem with this source though is that glassdoor.com as I see it is a place where users can anonymously say whatever they want about their bosses and their companies without facing any consequences or any kind of legal backing. This isn't someone like a Manpower or Challenger, Gray and Christmas (two companies well known for taking worker satisfaction surveys that are well regarded in the media which cooperate with companies and employees equally), but a site which is the equivalent of what TechTales and Blockbuster Sucks were in the early 2000's; sites which only existed to denigrate their companies and customers, but at a much more massive scale. Also the timing of the surveys in the late month of December don't suggest a serious survey, but just something glassdoor.com's PR firm puts out at the end of the year to fill column space, get a little time on a local newscast which needs to fill a minute, and try to sell their site in a way that minimizes the fact it is a site where people mainly go to complain about their job. A similar article about a site that rates the worst executives and bosses has been deleted for the same concerns in the past, and that is why I find the site very questionable to use, along with the fact it doesn't list why Fastenal should be given the honor beyond '5th most thumbs down rating we received'. But the issues above about the aritcle writing and incredibly unneeded expansion and cruft (including way too much information about their motorsports sponsorship that was attempted to be shortened to 'Fastenal sponsors NASCAR, etc.' which was rejected out of hand by Fleetham after a neutral editor tried to reduce it down) concern me much more.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 10:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editor at Chicago
For over a month now, a user has repeatedly tried to add unsourced information in the article. The information being added is this. There was a discussion in the talk page and no consensus was reach to keep the information added. Verygentle1969 has been persistently adding trying to re-add the information despite being asked not to and being reverted by multiple editors. Any form of communication seems to be ignored as they have made no attempts to explain why their edit should be kept or participate in the discussion. Instead, he/she has continued to re-add the information under the IP,. They were given a final warning for making this edit. A little while after, they reinstated the edit despite being given a final warning and multiple warnings prior to that warning. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 02:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Verygentle1969 and IP notified. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 02:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You may as well keep that Forbes financial information in the article; it's true. The editor was wrong to not source them, but there's no point in not adding the information if it's true. I can't pull anything up for the inland city part, though I'd agree that this fits under trivia information. m.o.p  02:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Eloc, since you are an admin, what are you trying to get out of this post? C T J F 8 3  03:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't do anything since I'm involved and I feel that out of the concern of other editors, the issue should be raised. The inland city part is the bit of information that's being rejected. It doesn't appear to be true as said in the talk page. In terms of a city population as in city proper (I am assuming this as metropolitan areas, agglomerations, etc. do not serve as capitals) Chicago is not largest inland city. For example, the city of Ahmedabad has more people within its city limits than Chicago does and it does not serve as a provincial capital and is an inland city. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 03:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahh, ok, guess you can't do anything if you are involved. C T J F 8 3  03:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Not only has the editor been persisting in this for a long time, the info he's trying to post is flat-out wrong. Chicago is in no way "landlocked". It's the largest American city on the Great Lakes, unless the Great Lakes have evaporated and no one told us about it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's like saying Cairo, Illinois is landlocked because it's surrounded completely by levees, though it borders on both the Mississippi and Ohio rivers. But then again, there is not much reason to go to Cairo (though it's probably right now a safer place to be in than Cairo, Egypt). –MuZemike 09:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been there, Cairo Egypt might be safer, lol.  He  iro  09:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of the concept of "landlocked" being applied to cities at all. It's a concept that applies to countries, not cities. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

gaming adverts
hello could someone look at my messages page, as someone keeps filling it with solicitations for online gaming, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.251.24 (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I blocked the user as well, as it's clear that it was some sort of automated spam username. First posts were within seconds of registration, so yeah. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 18:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * -- Luk  talk 13:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked user Marknutley claiming a copyright violation.
See here: User_talk:Marknutley. Mark says that an article he wrote for the Mises Wiki has been copied to Wikipedia without attribution. I'm not sure where or how this should be handled. Can anyone help? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the article as an obvious copyvio. Nakon  21:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I got into a delete-edit conflict with Nakon. Trying to figure this out, original is under CC-BY-3.0; I added

This article's content at the time of its creation originated from this page at the Mises Wiki and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 according to the Mises Wiki copyright policy.

but it got deleted at the same time. :P / ƒETCH COMMS  /  21:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is CC3 but we really are not here to do that, are we? we primarily write our own articles, and reference them ourselves and as this is connected to an editor in conflict with this project it appears more disruptive to the project to keep it than beneficial to keep it. . Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's legally usable, and if the page is NPOV, well-sourced, etc. then it should be fine to use. There've been similar discussions before and it's AFAIK been up to a case-by-case basis; if consensus is to use a page and not apply CSD G5, then so be it. Copyright violation is incorrect, though, once attribution has been added. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  21:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, CC3 can be imported into CC-By-SA. See . As long as licensing requirements are met, we can have it, other issues notwithstanding. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If it were to be reinstated, I'd be inclined to AfD it as a POV-fork on left wing terrorism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is clearly no hurry to cut and copy content to enwikipedia from other wikis without consensus and discussion, and some editorial investigation of the content, especially imo when a blocked user who has been refused his unblock request claims authorship. Off2riorob (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with both comments above. The article contents on the Mises wiki smell strongly of original synthesis to me, even though there is plenty of factual information as well. There's no need to insist on grabbing off-site content when it's that far away from being usable on Wikipedia. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Gavia immer. TFD (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Restore the page. It wasn't a copyvio and should have never been speedied. Then if needed, it can be nominated for deletion where a proper discussion on its suitability in Wikipedia can take place. -Atmoz (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, it was a cut n paste without attribution from what looks like nutley's personal wiki. That's about as clear of a copyvio as one can get. Tarc (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Attribution was actually added just before deletion. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  16:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban User:Sktruth
This is a single purpose account focussed on the article on Sante Kimes, convicted con artist and multiple murderer. After two days of discussion with this user all of the sudden a lawyer has filed a request via OTRS to have the article deleted. An amazing coincidence considering that we have had an article on this person since 2003 but Sktruth started editing it just a two days ago and has made about sixty edits to it in that time, mostly removing negative information, which is of course the bulk of the article since Kimes is notable for being a criminal and a murderer. Despite their repeated denials it seems exceedingly obvious that this user has some sort of conflict of interest and may be Mrs. Kimes herself or a member of her legal team. Since they won't admit to the connection I suppose an outright block is difficult to justify, but a topic ban from this article seems more than appropriate. Beeblebrox (talk) 12:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've totally heard of the "black widow" Sante Kimes (and her son Kenneth Kimes, her partner in crime who took a reporter hostage at one point while in prison, I believe). She is certainly a notable criminal, and there's no reason to delete the article. Topic ban or block: this is one AfD I can't wait to follow. Doc   talk  12:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Username of "Sktruth"? Do we need a placard and trumpets to spot a spa COI? We shouldn't topic ban for COI alone, but watch their edits very careful and any shift from NPOV (including a frivolous deletion request) would be enough reason. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well the math is more like this: obvious coi+trying to whitewash the article+calling a lawyer when that backfired=topic ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to read long edit histories, but you're not surprising me at all. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Beeblbrox is quite right really, this is gonna happen and perhaps sooner is rather less disruptive than later. Off2riorob (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I tried to help this editor by leaving a welcome template and some comments. This editor did respond back to me but when I went to the talk page I found that my comments, the template and their comments were deleted from their talk page.  Reading the history of their talk page says a lot in my opinion.  Also, the user name is in violation of  usernames.  At first when I made comments I thought this editor was making newbie errors but looking at what has gone on since I think this account should be blocked for violations of username and probably violations of COI and other policies.  This editor isn't listening to anyone who has tried to help which is of great concern to me.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  13:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Any username with "truth" in it should be pre-emptorily blocked; we can then investigate to see if unblocking is advisable. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a bit harsh, but of course they do very often turn out to be users like this who are on a crusade to right some perceived wrong. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I made a comment at the article talk page. Sante Kimes (per the article) will be in prison til the 22nd century, so I doubt she is editing the article herself.  Sktruth has alleged a number of factual errors in the article that should be easy to check out; for example, s/he says Sante Kimes was never convicted of arson.   Parts of the article were apparently sourced to a sensationalistic-sounding book written by her older son, and that book could well be shaky.  If Sktruth is willing to voluntarily stop editing the article for a while (let's say 2 weeks, after which we can see where we are), I can see some value to allowing talkpage participation while other editors check out his/her claims.   S/he does seem to know a lot about the case. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned on the article talk page, they have computers in prison so it is not impossible, and I have already edited the article to reflect that she was not convicted of arson, just accused of it by her son who apparently committed arson and other crimes on her behalf as a young man. I don't think a two week topic ban is going to cut it, a crusader like this cannot be allowed to edit an article after they have gone so far as to call in a lawyer. There's no way that was just a coincidence, the article has been on Wikipedia for seven and a half years, and Kimes' lawyer is suddenly upset about it two days after Sktruth starts trying to scrub it? There is a reason we don't allow legal threats, just because this one came in from OTRS and the user is denying their patently obvious close connection to either Kimes herself or her lawyers doesn't mean we should ignore the obvious. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes there are computers in prison just like there is TV, but it would surprise me if any prisoners have unlimited internet access. I read in the newspaper that a big problem these days is keeping cell phones from being smuggled to prisoners.  Letting them online without a lot of monitoring and restrictions would defeat the purpose of the cell phone restrictions.  Sante Kimes (even with net access) also doesn't seem like the sort of person who would edit like Sktruth.  So while it's theoretically possible that Kimes is Sktruth, I consider it very unlikely.  I do agree with the inference that Sktruth is communicating in some way with Kimes's lawyers.   71.141.88.54 (talk) 10:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support indefinite topic ban - After reading the talk pages involved, the AfD, edit summaries etc. there's really only one possible conclusion, that Sktruth is a SPA here to push a POV and whitewash the article on Kimes. Sktruth is certainly not interested in helping to create a NPOV encyclopedia.  Sktruth may or may not be Kimes, or someone close to her, or may just be a groupie, but it hardly matters, the editor's behavior tells the tale.  If I'm wrong, and this person is genuinely interested in building an encyclopedia, their behavior post-ban will indicate that, and can be taken into account if lifting the ban in requested in the future, but in the meantime, there's no reason to allow this kind of blatant POV-pushing on behalf of a convicted murderer to continue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support indefinite topic ban - per Kens reasonings. seems to be a groupie of some kind.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support indefinite topic ban - Also per Beyond My Kens reasonings.  He  iro  15:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support indefinite topic ban - Just compare this to this. BMK is completely correct, SPA's should not be allowed to engage in such POV-pushing on their target articles. --Dylan620 (t • c) 17:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: User has renamed to via CHU. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support restriction against editing the article. For now, I don't see a need to prohibit continued talkpage participation (that can be revisited if it gets too disruptive).  The article has gotten better because of it.  Dylan620's diff is of course awful, but that looks like an early error, and the person has been interacting politely since then.  I left a note at user talk:WPUCU1 asking for clarification about the connection with Kimes's lawyers.  71.141.88.54 (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * We appear to have strong support for a topic ban here. I have already informed the (now renamed) user of this as they have so far not participated in this discussion, but I think it would be good if a previously uninvolved admin made a formal statement to them informing them of the topic ban, so as to make it clear this is a community decision and not a personal vendetta. I suppose this should also be listed at WP:RESTRICT. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to report this but: Over the course of our conversation I mentioned the highly questionable nature of the "Sante Kimes Foundation for the Wrongfully Convicted" and noted that linking to their Facebook page was probably not appropriate. Lo and behold, as of today they suddenly have an official website and another WP:SPA, User:Jfaia is repeatedly linking it to the article. Without commenting on the validity of the link, does anyone else hear the sound of quacking? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * SPI filed. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I have asked User:Stifle (who opened the AfD in response to the OTRS request that Kimes's attorneys sent) to check with the attorneys whether that "official site" really is one. If the attorneys confirm it then I suppose we should leave it in the article.  71.141.88.54 (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, we shouldn't. We are under no obligation to provide promotional links to this kind of campaign when there is no public controversy about the convictions.  If there was widespread concern about a miscarriage of justice, noted in reliable sources, than I would say that a NPOV would require a link to a legitimate campiagn for justice, but that is not the case, this is simply a career criminal convicted for their crimes trying the game the system.  The link should stay out whether it's legitimate or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ken, our general practice is to include links to official sites of all subjects that have them as far as I know. We have links to some very obnoxious sites like that of Stormfront for that reason.   I could make a case for changing the practice on general principles, but I don't see Kimes as being exceptional (unlike Stormfront, I doubt the link actually brings any benefit to her cause).  To Jfaia: we're not obligated to include the link.  The guideline just says how we usually handle such links in the absence of special circumstances.  If there's consensus that we should leave it out, then we can leave it out.  The article talk page is the usual place to discuss such things though. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 01:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken Wikipedia guideline: Official links "An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following:

1.The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.

2.The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. These links are exempt from the links normally to be avoided, but they are not exempt from the restrictions on linking. For example, although links to websites that require readers to register or pay to view content are normally not acceptable in the External links section, such a link may be included when it is an official website for the subject.

Official links are still subject to standard formatting requirements, such as rich media labeling and not placing links in the text of the article. When an official website is used as a source to verify a self-published statement in the article text, it should be formatted like any other reference used in the article.[4] Official websites may be included in some infoboxes, and by convention are listed first in the External links section. Use of the template [http:// Official website] is optional.

No official link exists for many articles. "Fansites", including everything from websites run by fans of a musician to a charitable organization supporting patients with a disease, even if they are endorsed or authorized by the subject, are not considered official websites because the subject of the article is unable to control the information being presented. Links to websites that are not considered official websites may still be justifiable under other sections of this guideline, e.g., Links to consider #4." --Jfaia (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

REFER TO WP GUIDELINE

"What should be linked" 1.Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. --Jfaia (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a promotional website and your organization has no inherent right to have your website linked here in the absence of any public controversy about the conviction of the career criminal who is the subject of the article in question. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is the quaking getting deafening in here? How is that SPI going so far? 2 SPA's showing up in a matter days pushing the same agenda is surely not a coincidence?  He  iro  01:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Website in question is not an advertisement, it is the OFFICIAL website of the subject. WP GUIDELINE: Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself.--Jfaia (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The website is promotional if consensus says it is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering the website seems to have been set up to specifically get around our rules on WP:VERIFY, WP:COI, WP:SOAPBOX, and who knows what else, per WP:IGNORE(one of our 5 pillars of editing here) we do not have to include a link to any site from here, official or not.  He  iro  02:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if it is, in fact, the convict's "official" website, be it 10 years old or 10 hours old, it contains no new or useful information. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * For further info on Sktruth/Jfaia, see Sockpuppet investigations/WPUCU1. I don't understand why that character is still being allowed to edit, but maybe the admins are feeling generous lately. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with the suggestion of blocking Jfaia, an obnoxious SPA and likely sockpuppet. I'd keep WPUCU1 unblocked for the time being.  Jfaia: it's not doing you any good to lecture about policy to participants of this thread.  They are all WP dispute resolution veterans who understand policy a lot better than you do.  71.141.88.54 (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I blocked User:Jfaia, because of her being an obvious sockpuppet, and because her repeated copying of whole sections of policy was irritating me. But mostly because of the 'obvious sockpuppet' thing. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm no internet geek, so I have to ask a totally ignoranimous question: Is it possible to easily determine when a website was created? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm no tech geek, but the Facebook page seems to indicate that the web site is brand new. Also, they have 10 'friends.'  I know household pets with larger followings than that.  Notice also the complete lack of any names or contact information in either place- a real 'official' web site wouldn't try to hide who was making it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, don't be so harsh. It's every bit as real as this one: (Or maybe NOT, now that I think of it.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Aaaand the latest sock is.
 * ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * CU confirms all and a few more. Let the blocking begin, lol.  He  iro  03:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've asked Stifle to ask the lawyers to call off the socking. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could ask for it via the "official website"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The copyright on the page is 2011, and it never showed up until yesterday in all the extensive searching I have been doing while improving the article. It's pretty clear that it was created specifically to circumvent policy after I spoke to the user about the advisability of linking to the Facebook page it mimics. The urge to defraud and lie is hard for a con to suppress, even after they have failed spectacularly at it. At one point Kimes was actually quite wealthy and could simply have "gone straight" and lived the good life as the wife of a tycoon in Hawaii had she had the desire and/or self control. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Subject's official website being remove
According to Wikipedia's guidelines, an article's subject's official website should be linked on the article. This is not being followed with the Sante Kimes article.

Subject's official website has been removed without cause, other than by biased opinion of the editors. Which say "no legitimate reason to link to this site, we're not here to help promote attempts by convicted criminals to game the system" written by Beyond My Ken this is obviously a bias opinion of the editor.

The WP guideline for official websites is as follows:

"An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following:

1.The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.

2.The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. These links are exempt from the links normally to be avoided, but they are not exempt from the restrictions on linking. For example, although links to websites that require readers to register or pay to view content are normally not acceptable in the External links section, such a link may be included when it is an official website for the subject.

Official links are still subject to standard formatting requirements, such as rich media labeling and not placing links in the text of the article. When an official website is used as a source to verify a self-published statement in the article text, it should be formatted like any other reference used in the article.[4] Official websites may be included in some infoboxes, and by convention are listed first in the External links section.

No official link exists for many articles. "Fansites", including everything from websites run by fans of a musician to a charitable organization supporting patients with a disease, even if they are endorsed or authorized by the subject, are not considered official websites because the subject of the article is unable to control the information being presented. Links to websites that are not considered official websites may still be justifiable under other sections of this guideline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawtn (talk • contribs) 02:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * How can a convicted felon have an 'official website'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * While you single out one editor, it appears that three different editors and a bot have removed your attempted addition. This is a simple content dispute, and not anything an administrator can resolve for you.  It is being discussed on the talk page, and should not be reinserted lacking consensus to do so. Resolute 02:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hawtn neglects to mention that (s)he was blocked for abuse of multiple accounts earlier today. I'm not sure who the puppeteer is, but I have blocked this account also for block evasion. —C.Fred (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * What I don't get is that the presumed sockmaster, Sktruth, is not even blocked. Maybe someone should remedy that - and maybe block the underlying IP as well? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * HelloAnnyong is working on the check-user right now. -- Diannaa (Talk) 03:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it "sweeps" week? :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Current state of play
All CU-confirmed socks indef blocked, master account blocked for a week for socking, article semi'd. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Since this user will be unblocked in a week I still think it would be a good idea for someone besides me (or I guess my fellow abusive admin Beyond My Ken) to formally notify her of the topic ban which we achieved a fairly strong consensus for above, and to log the ban at WP:RESTRICT. Any takers? Beeblebrox (talk) 09:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Correction: I am not now, nor have I ever been, an admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I still support it, and think the person should consider themselves lucky to still receive that and not an indefinite block or full site ban for some of their shenanigans in the last few days.  He  iro  09:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think somebody forgot to actually perform the one-week block. But I don't see why we should restrict it to just a week anyway, nor why we would want to do merely a topic ban. This user kept creating new sockpuppets after they had been notified of the SPI and even after they had had the gall of defending themselves on that SPI. I've indef-blocked now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Their renamed acct is User:WPUCU1 and it is set with a one week expiration of its block, think thats what Beeblebrox was referring to.  He  iro  09:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, sorry, I hadn't noticed they were now treating WPUCU1 as the master account. Sktruth was the one that had somehow escaped blocking. But I still propose we should raise the week block to indef, for blatant lying and continued socking while negotiating the sockpuppeting charge and promising to behave better. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I personally wouldn't object, but the community may want to extend them some AGF in other areas of the Pedia than this after a long enough block for it to settle in that what they did was unacceptable and a topic ban on this particular subject. Seems to happen that way alot.  He  iro  09:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Coffin nails User:Getoffwelfareandgetajob, who trolled my talk page, now blocked as a sock of this user. As the blocking admin is also a CU I would assume that was used to confirm. Now it is really, really time to indef block this user. Beeblebrox (talk) 10:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't do the block, but ✅ yes. Also -  A l is o n  ❤ 10:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess I should have known you didn't do the block since I did it. It was very gracious of you not to rub my nose in it. Ironically, I had assumed it was the "angry ip" from two threads down this very page. Beeblebrox (talk) 10:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Indef-blocked. I was the admin who unblocked this user three days ago on promises of good behaviour. S/he had a point initially; the article was in very bad shape, and has been much improved as a result of all this; but the sockpuppetry and trolling has become quite unacceptable and this latest sock and personal attack is the last straw. I have extended the block on the master account to indefinite. JohnCD (talk) 11:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "S/he had a point initially;" No, not really, because her point wasn't that it was a bad article which needed to be improved, her point was that it was an article which needed to be skewed in a way that whitwashed Kines. Her goals and our goals overlapped momentarily, but very quickly diverged, which is why we gain very little from letting SPA's roam free. Unlike the Anglo-Saxon justice system, which posits that some version of truth will emerge from a battle between two advocates, we cannot be assured that every SPA will have an anti-SPA, or even that a SPA's activities will be noticed by unbiased editors, so our articles are more likely to be warped and unbalanced by the Sktruths out there then they are to be helped by the provocation. SPAs and paid editors are a much more serious problem to the project than unsourced BLPs, or improperly justified non-free images, or some of the other topics which have gripped the moral panic crowd. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a funny thing, the harder I worked to improve the article, the more they screamed "bias" at me. You can't say we didn't try, this person, whoever they are, didn't want the truth, they wanted to broadcast the fact that Kimes claims to be innocent of the 100+ charges she was convicted on. Ironically, I also added that information, which was lacking, to the article and summarized the paranoid ranting statement she directed at the court during the sentencing phase of the Silverman trial, including her accusations that it was an elaborate frame-up, but apparently that was not enough. Whenever I get a message that nasty on my talk page I just know I did something right. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Tendentious editor
is continuously making disruptive edits in regards to the flag used by the Kingdom of Serbia. Ironically he does provide a source for his reasoning in the |edit summary, but that source completely contradicts his point and only validates my own. I have brought up these points on his talk page, but so far he has completely ignored any communication and prefers to conduct an edit war, as follows: ,,, to list a few. This is also the case on the List of national mottos, where I've quite clearly tried, to inform him that Serbia does not have an official motto, i.e. not sanctioned by the government, I have even asked him to provide a source at least, which he has still not provided. To date he ignores this and inserts a motto anyways. Buttons (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (tweaked user link) --Mirokado (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Correct me if I'm mistaken, but doesn't this text:
 * "An article in the bimonthly political magazine Srpska Rec (undated, probably from December 2001) explains how the working group presented their proposal for the new symbols of Serbia on 23 November 2001. The working group decided to propose the readoption of the 1882 symbols - the plain tricolour as the national flag, the tricolour with coat of arms as the state flag, the coat of arms from the Obrenović dynasty period and the anthem Bože pravde, also from 1882."
 * from the source support his contention the new flag is the same as the 1882 flag? <B>—Torchiest</B> talkedits 22:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've protected the page for a day to stop the edit war. You're both 3RR. I have also left a notice on User 1389's talkpage informing him of this discussion.Fainites barley scribs 22:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Torchiest, the national flag used during the Kingdom of Serbia (1882-1918) was the plain tricolour as is supported here, same as it was during the Principality of Serbia before it. The problem lies in User1389's insistence on using the civil flag in its place for some reason, even using the same source to ironically try and justify their point. I've pointed this fact out to them several times with absolutely zero cooperation or communication on the matter. Buttons (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I have blocked User: 1389. He made another revert after being asked to stop and being notified of this discussion. He has a number of earlier blocks for similar behaviour. Fainites barley scribs 21:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Trinity Christian Academy (Addison, Texas)
There seems to be a habitual section blanking problem here, likely with representatives from the school, what can I do to protect the page?Thisbites (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The IP that removed it geolocates to the school itself. An inside job! I will watch-list the page. -- Diannaa (Talk) 03:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * While it may seem unfair that the kid got expelled, it's a private school, and he should have been aware of what he was getting himself into. It looks to me like "undue weight", as I'm sure there have been a number of students expelled over the years, for a number of reasons. I expect the school is pretty strict about anything sex-related. I can only imagine how they handle student pregnancies, for example. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that it's undue weight. The kid is notable enough that he has his own article: James Barnett. -- Diannaa (Talk) 03:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and according to his article, he was not actually expelled from the school. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think the controversy section should be there. It's a 1E issue. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC).
 * Well it's not like the school's so notable that a single event that happened there would be insignificant enough for the school to overshadow it. I think it's worth mentioning. -- &oelig; &trade; 04:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actual discussions about the content of the article need to be handled at the article talk page. Please keep the discussion here relevent to the need for admins to do something, not about what the article should or should not say.  That really needs to be discussed on the article talk page.  -- Jayron  32  05:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's anything here that needs admin attention. According to the kid's article, it was the kid's parents who decided to pull him out in order to save face for the kid. There's no hint that the school thinks they did anything wrong. This looks like a content dispute. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, there's no "habitual" blanking. The IP did it once - in October. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * According to this article, the school was planning on expelling him because he refused to take down the site and make a public announcement that he was "confused", so his father instead just removed him from the school so the expulsion wouldn't end up on his permanent record. Man, this story really hits home. :/ Silver  seren C 09:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * They were nicer to the kid than they had to be. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Malleus Fatuorum blocked by User:Geni
Geni blocked Malleus for 24 hours for saying "" with the reasoning that "" This strikes me as needing a review. Nev1 (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The block was made a full 10 hours after the comment. As I've already noted on Geni's talk, I believe it to be excessive and suggest immediate unblocking. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I also support an immediate unblock - totally overboard unnecessary use of restrictions.Hours after the block for a totally minor adult comment that was imo completely correct. Off2riorob (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed on unblock, but with a slap on the wrists for Malleus, the incident is pure WP:BATTLEGROUND. --Errant (chat!) 13:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's quite stressful tending an article for TFA - an article of this sort inevitably attracts opinion and comment. To block the main editor hours after a comment was made, while the article is still running on the main page is irresponsible. Support immediate unblock. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think blocking for that comment is questionable at best, and hours later it becomes purely punitive. Bad block.Griswaldo (talk) 13:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Urgh. Yeah, unblock him.  The worst part of this whole thing is that now we all have to listen to Malleus's one-note symphony about how all admins are worthless and corrupt.  Like we all need more of that sort of silliness. Thanks for that, Geni. -- Jayron  32  13:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 1)Malleus certianly claims to be british. I would suggest I'm in a better position to judge the severity of the insult than those don't share that cultural background.
 * 2)This was not a civility block per se but a dissruption one. The talk page of the days featured article should be a place where potential new editors feel that they could fit in. Creating a poisonous atmosphere in such an enviroment is unacceptable since it dissrupts wikipedia's ability to gain and hold new editors. If such comments had been made on a more inward facing page well eh thats Malleus for you.©Geni 13:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no policy that allows you to apply uncommonly strict standards because a featured article is a place that might attract new users.Griswaldo (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing like BITE for example? While just a guideline this is covered in the five pillars, - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * He was rude to a Wikipedia admin and bureaucrat, how on earth is that like biting a newbie? It doesn't matter where one bites newbies either.  Geni's claim is that certain articles, because they attract newcomers, should be treated with stricter standards.  Again, that is not supported by policy.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I also am reminded of this poor block in December from user Geni - her reason - overly strident language - block was overturned in 14 mins. Off2riorob (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't usually get involved in these but this is an egregiously bad block. This kind of irritable exchange is not what WP:CIV is for. Fainites barley scribs 13:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't cite WP:CIV©Geni 13:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support immediate unblock. Ridiculous block, clearly punitive. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 13:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * have you read my reasoning? Anway I've got to go for now per my standard WP:OWN approach anyone can unblock but I will hold them responcible for any bad behaviour by Malleus within the next 24 hours.©Geni 13:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. A reasoning not based in any policy at all. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 13:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Recently we have a new way of dealing with these issues, admins should not have to reverse another admins poor unsupported block, the admin that makes them should unblock the person they blocked and then block themselves for the same time period. Off2riorob (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "..and then block themselves for the same time period". Seriously?? -- &oelig; &trade; 14:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't figured out what this was supposed to stop... it was 10 hours after the comment and a full 8 hours after Malleus quit editing, this was obviously turning the whole of Wikipedia into a complete cesspit and needed immediate attention, obviously (sarcasm, for those who might miss it.) Wouldn't it have been better to address the vandalism on the article itself instead? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support unblock, please Geni, just do it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * (multiple ec) A block that long, made so long after such an insignificant comment, looks worse than punitive. It looks like "I want to block this editor, can I go back through his history and find something to hang it on?" DuncanHill (talk) 13:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I've unblocked, based on the majority view here and on both users' talk pages that the block was excessive. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Concur. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Utter stupidity. Parrot of Doom 13:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok. Clear personal attack for the other editor making a policy MOS-based suggestion, 24 hour block -- but just because it's Malleus, he gets a speedy unblock? Something is clearly not right here, and I don't think it's the original block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A block that was made several hours after the comments which supposedly justified it. Yes, something is clearly not right. Parrot of Doom 14:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, pretty clear that if you are of a certain class of editor you can make backhanded comments to simple good faith suggestions (whether they are correct or not) and walk away. Syrthiss (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What disruption did the block prevent? By all appearances, MF had stopped editing already. Not that a warning would have done all that much, but what did the block accomplish exactly? apart from WP:DRAMA? UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)Stop with the drama please. I don't see any special treatment here. Comments like that are the kind you warn the user for making and save for an RFC if they are repeat offenders.  On their own, 10 hours after they are made, they are clearly not blockable offenses.  If Geni had warned him for the comment, and he continued to make such comments in the next few days, that's another matter.  If he makes more in a month and then more in another month take it to RFC.Griswaldo (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The worst sort of awful block.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, can we close this? Malleus has been unblocked, so there isn't anything else to do here. Let's just move on. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, nothing more to see here.Griswaldo (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure there is. At minimum we need an acknowledgement from the admin that they understand why the block was overturned and a statement that in the future they'll comply with the will of the community.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Geni seems to have stopped editing, and their comment above indicates that they're done for awhile. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? Geni needs to write a paragraph explaining what went wrong and that they understand? This isn't high school detention. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * An acknowledgement of the bad block would be nice, and would be in Geni's best interest. However, if it never comes what's going to happen?  Nothing.  The bad block is on record as such.  A couple of more of these bad blocks someone can seek sanctions or other actions against an admin who is abusing their tools, but I don't think its warranted yet.  Overreacting to Geni's bad block isn't much different from Geni's overreaction to Malleus.  Let it go until it is meaningful to talk about further.Griswaldo (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If Geni's stopped editing then in addition it's important to make sure that Geni understands that making a controversial block and then disappearing has been repeatedly viewed as unacceptable.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure she knows this is what the community feels about her block, and her dissapearence. Feel free to point it out directly to her on her talk page.  I doubt she's missing this discussion though.  In case it isn't clear, I agree with all of these sentiments, I just don't think anything productive is happening here at this point.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As noted above, I have also been on the receiving end of Geni's attitude that blocking hours after an event is not at all punitive (and indeed for comments that would be marginally blockable in the first place IMHO in this instance - no commentary on my block by Geni in that regard ). I suggest Geni needs to re-read WP:BLOCK in detail and perhaps assure the community that their Wild West gun slinging attitude to the block button will not continue. Pedro : Chat  14:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Another year, another block...Smallman12q (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Standard punitive block. I haven't read WP:BLOCK lately; do we still pretend that blocks are "preventative not punitive"? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocks should not be used:
 * Blocks should not be punitive


 * 1) in retaliation against users;
 * 2) to disparage other users;
 * 3) as punishment against users, or,
 * 4) where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern.

Blocks should be used to:
 * Blocks should be preventative


 * 1) prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia;
 * 2) deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior, and,
 * 3) encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms.

Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition. For example, even though it might have been justifiable to block someone a short time ago when they made inappropriate edits, it may no longer be justifiable to block them right now—particularly if the actions have not been repeated, or the conduct issues surrounding the actions have since been resolved.

Count Iblis (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks like it was preventative Nikkimaria doesn't appear to be around so would anyone else like to do the honors??©Geni 19:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No action needed for that one, imo.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to reblock for that you need to go now.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Bulldog123 and Jewish sportspeople
As part of a running battle going on over the past several weeks, User:Bulldog123 has been editing articles to remove mentions of the fact that athletes are Jewish, removing links to List of Jews in sports and removing categories such as Category:Jewish American sportspeople, from several dozen articles in the past few days, such as this recent edit. In many cases, these reverts by Bulldog123 removed material that had been added by User:Epeefleche. User:Ironholds has pleaded with Bulldog123 to cease making such edits without a consensus supporting his actions (see here) and Ironholds reverted a sequence of Bulldog123's edits. At roughly the same time, I went through a series of about a dozen articles that Bulldog123 had blindly reverted and added appropriate sources documenting the identity of these individuals as Jewish athletes. In every one of the dozen or so articles that I had gone through in the order in which Bulldog123 had reverted mentions of the individuals being Jewish sportspeople, I had no issue finding numerous sources using a Google search consisting of the individual's name, their sport and the word "Jewish". I had thought that the addition of such sources would address Bulldog123's issues, only to have him revert another dozen articles, such as here and here. It appears that Bulldog123 has been unable to separate his personal opinions on the subject of Jewish sportspeople from consensus on the subject and documentation provided using the dozens of reliable and verifiable sources that cover Jews in sports (as discussed here). It would appear that a content ban restricting Bulldog123 would be the most appropriate means of dealing with this pattern of belligerent editing on his part and that further subsequent edit warring on this topic or other similar matters related to ethnicity should result in blocks of increasing length. Alansohn (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We try to avoid labelling BLP's, particularly with religious labels, unless it is specifically demonstratably significant to their notability; see WP:BLPCAT. I've not looked in depth, but on the surface those removals look fine; consensus is to remove BLP issues such as this until sourced in line wiht policy. --Errant (chat!) 21:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ive left Epeefleche a note about BLPCAT. I'd recommend avoiding mass additions to the BLP articles till this is sorted out. --Errant (chat!) 21:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * - note - imo to better understand this report you will need to see also - there is discussion related at the BLPN - a report opened in the last day or two by Bulldog123. Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's not WP:FORUMSHOP here. There's a discussion, which Alansohn has been participating in, already active at WP:BLPN.  I see no reason to have two discussions on the same subject.  There's nothing for admins to act on here, this is a content issue, and needs to be disucssed on the appropriate content noticeboard, where it is already happening.  I think we need to hat this discussion and direct everyone to keep this all in one place.  -- Jayron  32  21:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, there is no admin action required here. I highly doubt there will be any support for a topic ban under these conditions.  BLP's must be treated more sensitively than other articles, people may not want to be labeled as jews if it is not reported widely elsewhere in reliable sources (not blogs).  Alansohn characterizes Bulldog as someone who is targetting articles on jews (as if he is an anti-semite or something), when in reality it should be Epeefleeche's edits that are put under more scrutiny, since it is Epee who apparently has decided that his/her sole purpose on WP is to tag every jewish BLP with a prominent notice to the reader that the person is jewish.  Hat this discussion and continue at WP:BLPN.  <span style="font:13px 'Copperplate Gothic Light';border:#AAAACC 1px inset;background-color:#F2F9FA;color=#00AA00">Snotty Wong   gossip 22:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree, which is why I have raised the subject here. In the face of multiple reliable and verifiable sources demonstrating that this intersection is a definingly notable one and the addition of sources to articles supporting the claim, Bulldog123 has persistently continued a pattern of unjustified blind reverts in the face of consensus to the contrary. The snide characterization that this is an issue of Bulldog123's religious bias has no basis in reality, when the simple issue is one of persistently ignoring reliable and verifiable sources that contradict his claims. Alansohn (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of dubious, improperly sourced, unencyclopedic material
has repeatedly added material to  which is dubious in origin, apparently being transcluded from a privately-operated Web page. The material is unencyclopedic in nature, taking the form of a trivia list. If I attempt to remove the material again I will violate WP:3RR. I do intend to warn the user regarding the apparent conflict of interest and possible username policy issues. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * They have not edited for over 30 minutes; perhaps the warnings are starting to sink in? -- Diannaa (Talk) 00:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That or their other activities are getting them more noticed than they'd like. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No activity in over 24 hours. I'm thinking this has resolved itself. Thanks, --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

User:NYScholar back with new IP address.
I am sorry to have to report that this banned user appears to have returned again one day after the most recent IP block, this time as. Previous discussions on this at, ,. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * NYScholar, just lay off for a while, ok?  When a banned editor quietly starts making good edits that don't repeat the conduct that led to the ban, other editors (per WP:IAR) will often decide to look the other way and not notice the ban evasion.  But you can't be in their face about it, such as getting into any sort of conflict, or coming back to the same article 1 day after getting blocked.  Better yet, why don't you edit Wikibooks for a while?  It doesn't have a book about Pinter at the moment. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Harold Pinter now semi-protected 3 days. If necessary, we may need to semi-protect the talk page or escalate the protection on the article page to full. –MuZemike 02:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (Pause) Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your actions, MuZemike. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

User Vidboy10
This user continues to chgange the infobox in the article 2011 Egyptian protests I reverted the first time stating to take it to the talk page as the issue of a military infobox had been discussed there but the same user again changed it a 2nd time, a warning was given on user's talk page and I changed it back a 2nd time when he changed it back a 3rd time going against 3RR. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You never mentioned my name in the talk page nor acknowledged that i should stop reverting the page back to a military box, you only labeled down on what needs to be done User:Vidboy10 (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2011 (PST)


 * I mentioned your edit in the edit summary to take it to the talk page to discuss. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The same editor has placed the infobox in the article two more times and with 3 editors against and 1 for adding the military infobox, no consensus to add it has so far been reached and other editors are now involved. If I am making a mistake by comming here im sorry for that I just feel a consensus should be reached here without all of this adding and removing of content. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It should be mentioned that the user reporting this case referred to the infobox change as "vandalism" in his/her second revert, when this is clearly a good faith (if a bit misguided) edit. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It should be also mentioned he (and I mean Vidboy) just did it once again. For at least 6th time in 24 hours and possibly many more. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * And again. And won't stop unless he is stopped. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This user also removed a photograph on the specious grounds that it is "disturbing." ScottyBerg (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh (Vid)boy! --94.246.150.68 (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked by Dreadstar indef for disruptive editing. — Jeremy  ( v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.! ) 01:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Administrative eyes on Priscilla K. Coleman and its active editors
I'd like to ask for outside administrative input on Priscilla K. Coleman. This article is the scene of an active edit war, and the tone of discourse on the talk page is probably amply summarized in this thread. In particular, I would like other admins to review the recent actions of. Aside from edit-warring, highlights include:
 * When asked for policy-based arguments, responds: "You are just a hater of the un-born who will stop at nothing to decieve people on the truth about abortion."
 * Repeatedly addresses other editors by calling them "radical feminists"
 * Touts lifesitenews.org and other pro-life websites as reliable sources, while dismissing the American Psychological Association and the New York Times  as unreliable.
 * States that another editor is "a radical feminist who is trying to use the biased attack nature of this article to suppress the truth and have more women commit suicide."

This last diff goes beyond basic incivility. I'm not a stickler about personal attacks, but accusing another editor of intentionally trying to cause women to commit suicide is so far beyond the pale of reasonable discourse that, were I not involved in the discussion, I would block for it. How can you collaborate with someone who thinks you relish the prospect of driving women to suicide? These attacks are layered on top of partisan, tendentious editing, the promotion of low-quality sources, the removal of reliable sources which contradict an editor's agenda, and of course edit-warring.

There's been some talk recently about the need to deal more effectively with WP:ACTIVIST editing, so I'd like to bring this here as an example, and as a situation that's in need of outside administrative attention. MastCell Talk 21:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Amended: an admin has blocked for 31 hours for edit-warring, and I'm grateful for his quick attention to the matter. I'd still like to leave this thread open, because I think the problem here seems pretty deep-seated and potentially likely to recur after the block expires, but I appreciate the rapid administrative attention to the matter. MastCell Talk 21:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I am the admin who blocked User:Johnpacklambert. It was done quite independent of this ANI, which I had not seen beforehand. The user has appealed the block, so it would be good if another admin could deal with that ASAP because he's making a bit of a ruckus on his talk page about it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * An admin has dealt with the appeal. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Could ClueBot, have a glitch?
The ClueBot just bit a newcomer by reverting this edit by a new user and placed a warning on the user's talk page. Perhaps not the best edit in the world, but clearly not in the realm of vandalism.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Non-Admin Comment: Can I point you in the direction of User:ClueBot/FalsePositives? The coders of ClueBot will take the revision and code the bot better.  In fact, I don't think there's anything the admins can do.  ~  Matthewrbowker  Say hi! 00:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sweet. Just trying to give everyone a heads up. I've never seen the bot do that before.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's set to make a low level of false positives so it can be as effective as possible in reverting vandalism. I think it's currently configured to make 1 mistake every 4000 reverts, or something like that. If you see any, do report them to help make it even better :) <font face="Verdana">&#91; stwalkerster &#124; talk &#93;  01:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

89.100.20.87
I'd like a review of whether I had been handling the situation with the talk page of properly, as well as any opinions on what should be done next with the IP's incomprehensible demand of, "I want my IP REMOVED NOW! ... NOW! REMOVE IT FROM YOUR SITE NOW! YOU DAMNED THIEVES!" Blanking? Blocking? Blocking and disable talk access? Thoughts are appreciated. --Nlu (talk) 03:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The IP has apparently now created an user account and continues to "demand" the same. --Nlu (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me try to reason with them... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * With this and, do we really need them?  He  iro  03:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It ring of deliberate trolling IMHO The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What I thought as well, maybe indef and be done?  He  iro  03:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The IP user could have been blocked for that back in December.
 * It's entirely possible that say this new user comes in, on an IP address that they just got due to router reboots that was previously assigned to a troublemaker and had a bunch of warnings on its talk page, sees the warnings, doesn't understand anything about how IPs work or what's going on, and freaks out. In this case, the new user isn't necessarily associated with the prior behavior at all.  They just need to have the situation explained to them and for them to be treated decently now.
 * If it is the same person, and they continue that behavior, then all bets are off and their likely lifetime here is short. But there's no reason to assume that at the moment.  AGF.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Its feasible indeed, but using Nigger in repsonse to Beeblebrox's explanation really? oops old diff The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems like someone who is just yelling for the sake of yelling to me. Racism, empty, illogical threats, not one constructive edit... I added a notice to the older talk page since it has now apparently rotated. We could maybe collapse the old stuff for readability as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like a dynamic IP so if the user waits a while s/he will have a different IP adress and if s/he does not edit from that one ... problem solved. I n k a <sup style="color:black;">888  04:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You should first start by not restoring the blanking of the warnings on the talk page. The user has a right to blank their talk page under WP:BLANKING. And since none of the talk page's content falls under one of the very limited exceptions, you are actually violating the talk page policy by restoring them. —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've never been clear on if that applies equally to a shared ip talk page. It's not "your" talk page if the next time you log in you are suddenly on another ip. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Shared IPs can remove the block notices/warnings. However, the "Shared IP" template should never be removed. Users simply blanking the page should be reverted. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The only portion that can be restored is the Shared IP notice. However, even Dynamic IPs are allowed to remove warnings form the talk pages of their IP, even if they were not the original target of the notice. Therefore, Beeblebrox, I recommend that you restore the talk page to when the IP last blanked it you engaged in an edit war over the warnings, then reapply the Shared IP noticed. —Farix (t &#124; c) 23:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The IP editor seems to want to be blocked:, , JoeSperrazza (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If he's causing this much bullshit, maybe we should block him for disruption.— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 05:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Somebody want to block this troll? I know I do. They've moved on to calling another user a "cunt" and adding insults to pages related to me, apparently irritated that I don't always capitalize the term "ip." In order to avoid the appearance of a "revenge block" I suggest somebody other than me apply a nice, long block to this ip. Note the lack of a single positive contribution and the fact that the last block was for one month. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * @ Farix: Please look again at the edit history of the talk page and re-examine your accusation that I edit warred in this situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Note the lack of a single positive contribution and the fact that the last block was for one month. ". Also note that the IP appears to be static, not dynamic (both by host name and, more significantly, that it is not listed in any of the Dynamic IP blocklists). JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I applied a 72 hr block. The next block I have to make would be another month, then six months, though.  This has gone on for a while.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Which makes me curious as to why you went with much shorter block than the last one, which clearly failed to curtail the problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Need an uninvolved admin to drop a warning
's edits to Talk:Homeopathy are starting to become a significant nuisance. In particular, he keeps trying to push the same point against consensus, see objections raised to his poll and his latest comment "Do you want to ban me because I concur with user Jimbo wales (...) stop all the tricks to try to ban editors you disagree with from the discussion. In other words request for some dignity and honesty. (...)". It's starting to be disruptive.

Please, could an uninvolved admin go to User_talk:George1918 and drop him a link to Homeopathy's discretionary sanctions? --Enric Naval (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. --John (talk) 05:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

SmackBot and Rich Farmbrough
Two days ago blocked, operated by. Rich Farmbrough unblocked his own bot soon after. reblocked, and Rich Farmbrough unblocked again this morning. I've made a procedural reblock of the bot without no comment on the original block. Rich Farmbrough's potentially quite serious violations of administrator conduct policy merits review here, as perhaps does the original block. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 11:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * While his unblock may be technically incorrect, he did follow the text of my block notification: "I have no objection to you unblocking the bot solely to continue with the "build p605" edits, which hve approval and don't seem to be problematic" (well, despite what he claimed, he didn't follow this the first time around, when he went stright back to the kind of edits that lead to the block, but the second, current time he did follow what I posted.) I have now unblocked SmackBot, with the understanding that Rich Farmbrough doesn't restart the type of edits I blocked the bot for until there is evidence that it is an approved task, and with a lower error rate than the run before the block. Fram (talk) 11:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 11:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC).


 * To be fair, both Fram and MSGJ are much too involved to be making blocks in this area, in my opinion. - Kingpin13 (talk) 11:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I wouldn't block Rich Farmbrough, but SmackBot is just a bot, not an editor. Fram (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is getting old, I think you guys need to kiss and make up. GiantSnowman 02:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, I unblocked SmackBot, and Richard thanked me, so there may be some progress from both sides :-) Fram (talk) 07:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * One small step at a time :) GiantSnowman 14:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Genuinely surprised by the suggestion that I am too "involved" to take action here. All I have been doing is enforcing bot policy and this editor's editing restriction. I purposefully have not got involved with details such as which edits are problematic (and do not have any prior disputes with this editor), but have merely acted according to policy and consensus. So perhaps you would like to reread that link you cited and explain why you think I am too involved? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. Simply put I don't believe you should make blocks here since you're likely to be effecting by a conflict of interest, due to having strong personal opinions on this subject and editor. And these opinions aren't necessarily representative of community consensus or policy. For example, you've made it fairly clear in the past that you think he should not take part in any automated editing, although policy doesn't specifically prohibit this, and the ban proposal which was basically for that didn't go through (although admittedly it was never reviewed properly, and there was some significant support (I would consider myself too involved to judge it too)). All that said, you are very easy to get muddled with CBM, so I may be mistakenly attributing some of their comments to you - Kingpin13 (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Immediate first thought upon seeing this section on watchlist: Dear god, not again! Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 02:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see this Persondata casing dispute finish. Rich, nobody agrees with lowercase parameters in Persondata. Please modify your code because it creates Persondata with mixed case parameters. This change isn't even part of AWB's general fixes so I don't understand what kind of "cosmetic changes" is that. It causes problems with current AWB's version, slow edit wars because AWB will correct to uppercase when a change is made to Persondata and more. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Apparent canvassing by User:Pablozeta
User:Pablozeta appears to have been inappropriately canvassing in relation to Articles for deletion/White Argentine. He has sent the same inappropriate notification to multiple editors, based on their presumed opinion over the issue:, , , , , , (- this is a slightly different message). In fact, a look at his user contributions [] shows that he has contacted each of these individuals more than once - this canvassing is a repeat of a similar earlier message.

Given this attempt to subvert due process in relation to the AfD discussion, can I ask that appropriate action be taken. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Clear canvassing. User has few edits- it's possible they're not aware this is inappropriate. Have they been informed? -- King Öomie  15:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have informed Pablozeta: see User_talk:Pablozeta. He has been contributing since September 2009, and has made 875 edits . AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think King Öomie meant; have you explained to them that this sort of activity is against our policy? And did they continue after you explained? --Errant (chat!) 16:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I doubt very much, from previous experience, that Pablozeta would take much notice of anything I told him about policy. He has been editing longer than I have, and seems to know his way around noticeboards etc well enough. If he isn't aware that canvassing is inappropriate, he should be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I just mean to make sure. Unlike criminal law, we work very hard to avoid punishing people who legitimately aren't aware they're breaking rules. WP:CANVASS is one of those that's A) Not encountered often and B) not immediately recognizable as a policy violation (as in, it's okay basically anywhere but Wikipedia). Obviously, if he's aware of the policy and acted in spite of it, action needs to be taken. -- King Öomie  16:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Pablozeta was aware that canvassing was against policy, it has now occurred. I think that this should probably be made clear in the AfD, if only to make the closing admin aware of the situation. Perhaps an uninvolved person could add a note? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe just the blanket "If you are here because someone asked you to comment..." thing we put up on things. Not sure what that template is. -- King Öomie  17:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I added the notavote template, although that's usually for off-wiki canvassing. -Atmoz (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Pablozeta has just canvassed the same people again (see []). I fail to see how this can possibly be allowed to continue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * He is now canvassing other users to start canvassing themselves: ! AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I sincerely apologize; I was not aware that this action was called canvassing, and that it was forbidden. I thought it was perfectly right to notify other users who may have the same point of view that an AFD is in course on an article they have contributed to. Check the history of the article and you'll find most of the users I contacted.--Pablozeta (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologizing is the best thing you could have done, Pablito! Diego Grez (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good on you, Pablo. To clarify why this instance was canvassing, even though the users you contacted were involved-
 * Your language is clearly intended to campaign for a given viewpoint, in this case that the article should stay
 * You are vote-stacking, posting to editors you have a reason to believe will vote with you.
 * Your postings WOULD have been appropriate if you'd notified editors in both camps of the discussion in a neutral way ("X article is up for deletion, comment at the AFD"). Assuming this is the end of it, I think this can be marked Resolved. -- King Öomie 14:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Ankara
Edit wars going on in Ankara. Including sockpuppets. Thanks.MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 07:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Second Opinion
I need a second opinion on my actions concerning a block since its been a while since I've done one. The user blocked is, and while my specific concern here is whether I screwed up on the duration of the block I would feel better about this block if someone could check and make sure that duration and the notification were all done according to policy. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine. You did write "CIO" instead of "COI" a couple times. Grand  master  ka  09:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * D'oh! :) But seriously, thanks for the reply. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty of converting some of your points to wikilinks. I think the first block was a little quick on the trigger (not yours), and may have contributed to a negative reaction by the editor. While I do see a lot of problems, he is brand-new, and is not like to realize what WP:BIO means, and without a wikilink, might not know where to look.-- SPhilbrick  T  13:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Would someone please revdel this?
I know the guy's long dead, but his descendants may well be justifiably upset. Malleus Fatuorum 03:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Diannaa (Talk) 03:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought RevDel wasn't supposed to be used for material that could be handled by reverting? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * These kind of requests shouldn't be brought to ANI - it just advertises the information more. I think it should be taken straight to Requests for oversight, non? GiantSnowman 01:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If revdel is all that is needed then an email to an active admin is a perfectly appropriate way to deal with these.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  15:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move: Pro-life > Anti-abortion
Request guidance as to whether the move discussion, opened about 3 hours ago and already contentious, should have a bold admin find an appropriate harmonious solution (I suggested speedy close). The proposer and first commenter (12 minutes in) have responded to every oppose comment to date. No direct abuse (yet), only a very confrontational situation very ripe for abuse to arise. JJB 23:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think those types of discussions (I can see where that one is going) are better served by the arbcom format where each person can comment only in their own section, no threaded discussion allowed. If some admin wants to be bold (I can't think of prior examples of this happening), I'd support protecting the talk page long enough to refactor the discussion into such sections (just moving stuff around so there's one section per user, not deleting anything), then asking for threaded replies to stop.  I'd oppose a speedy close since I see there are thoughtful comments being posted from both sides, and there is not a clear consensus either way.  71.141.88.54 (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing

 * Moved this section up here to keep debates on the same topic together. Fences  &amp;  Windows  03:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This user is WP:CANVASSING another user to change their vote from a Comment to an Oppose on a discussion. Although the user refused to do so, it seems inappropriate and I believe some form of censure is called for.  WikiManOne 03:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur The argument has gotten very heated, and there appears to be some WP:FORUMSHOPPING going on as well. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 03:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hope you can clarify this, and hope you're not referring to me, because per my comment below I think my selecting this forum has now been vindicated. JJB 04:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was referring to a WP:AIV report submitted by one of the IP editors involved, which has been looked at by another admin and directed here. Maybe I'm looking a bit shallow, but my impression is that the IP editor didn't get satisfaction on the Discussion page and escalated the issue to AIV...improperly, I might add, since while there was editing going on without consensus, it would be a serious stretch to call it vandalism, and doubly so since the IP accused the other party of abusing privileges they don't even possess. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 04:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a canvassing violation, though. It's one editor asking another to clarify their bolded not-a-vote vote. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that is not canvassing. That is simply talking to someone who has left a comment. Please take the heat out of this by not badgering everyone who opposes this RM. Fences  &amp;  Windows  03:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur with the above. Attempting to catch editors out on some procedural violation that is supposed to diminish their opinion will not subtract heat from the discussion. Also, you have not notified either of the editors you allege to be engaged in a "violation" that they are being discussed here. Please do inform them of this discussion. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It was a comment, not a vote as she clearly stated in response. I should have added it here, I wasn't aware that an incidence report had been filed, and I have notified the user in question. Thanks for the reminder. WikiManOne 03:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Fences: Did I call this one or what? Yes, I agree that reopening a charged discussion against a consensus of 6 months ago, arguing with nearly everyone who disagrees, having a first commenter who shows up within 12 minutes to agree and perform similar argumentation, and reporting a commenter to ANI for a nonissue without notification is a concerning set of markers. In my WP experience, it circumstantially is identical to the behavior of someone who is already guilty of separate canvassing personally, i.e., it suggests the complainant is projecting his own behavior on others. Monitoring .... JJB 04:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Continuing to speak only circumstantially, the nominator's low edit count has now been raised as an issue, and the IPs are chiming in on one side only with empty argumentation, SPA, and out-of-order comment. I've seen it before but never so fast. Monitoring .... JJB 04:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In my own defense, let me say that from the way the "Comment" was written it looked like an "Oppose" vote to me. I honestly thought she put Comment when she meant Oppose, so I went and asked her.  My thanks to all who used common sense here.  -- Kenatipo   speak! 04:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you look on my talk page, you will see clearly where the first commenter came from. Also, if you are accusing me of canvassing, would you be so kind as to point out the instance(s) you are referring to? This accusation that I have anything to do with IP addresses is laughable. WikiManOne 04:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, this statement "All commenters should read above (referring to an out-of-process move), as R's comment suggests. JJB 23:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Also, unless it's a fringe theory, nominator's link to AbortionIsProLife dotcom should be mentioned as one POV on any page called "pro-life", and that actually argues against nominator. JJB 04:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)" was added directly below nomination by an oppose, above the vote of another user. I wouldn't think this kind of "cutting line" for back of a better word is appropriate. WikiManOne 04:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:THREAD. And now the evidence collector is attacked, closing the circuit. Anyone? JJB 04:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Oh look, I called that one too. WikiManOne has pointed to his own canvassing, performed prior to anyone voting, which passes 2 or 3 of the 4 WP:CANVASS tests: partisan audience, secret, and probably nonneutral message. Monitoring .... JJB 04:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Oh look, WikiManOne has also admitted canvassing other editors on this issue. That's the 4th test, increasing breadth of audience. WikiManOne denies partisanship for the audience, seeming to believe that "not knowing" how they would respond gets him off the charge (Oops!, implies WikiManOne, one of those editors "did end up on my side"). However, unconscious selection is often at work unless you use a neutral list of recent commenters or project members or the like. And "I don't consider this Canvassing" is a nonneutral message. JJB 05:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The first one I understood, the second I do not see how it was a reply to the original comment, seems to be an excuse to put your comment on top. WikiManOne 04:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's an expansion of his original comment; that is allowed. In general, given the number of places that you have commented in the discussion, these repeated attempts to interfere with other editors' comments do not come off particularly well for you. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, that is hardly canvassing, if you would take the time to read the history in the various places, I had no reason to know he would support it, I was simply extending him the courtesy of notifying him that I had taken him up on his suggestion, that's hardly canvassing. The full conversation is below: — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiManOne (talk • contribs) 05:07, 4 February 2011

"I've reverted its creation as its a WP:POVFORK, please make a move request on Pro Life if you wish to move it. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * conversation
 * I took your suggestion and made the suggestion on the pro-life page, maybe you can weigh in? WikiManOne 20:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I need to think about it. This one is tricky, you are right that pro-life is POV, but pro-life is much more commonly used. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually your case looks pretty persuasive :). -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say much more commonly used, it's about the same I think when you look at neutral sources, and most of the uses of "pro-life" are referring to what the organizations claim themselves to be. "Pro-life" brings up 1480 results in Google news, "anti-abortion" brings up 1330 which leads me to think the difference in number of uses isn't substantial. If you look at each use, it is clear that the ones using "pro-life" are generally not quite as neutral as the "anti-abortion" uses. WikiManOne 20:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)"


 * (ec) You mean the second sentence in my reply, where I commented on one of the websites in your nom. OK. Oh look, WikiManOne has also been called out by an IP on this board for vandalism (which I moved immediately below). I'll comment there too. All, the applicability here seems to be that the motivating force for WikiManOne's move proposal is that PP is in the news again. JJB 05:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC) And another circumstantial mark of this type of editor is talk-page chaos, which I have fixed with this edit. And wikilawyering. Another one is that the type takes general and circumstantial analysis personally, so maybe I should stop now. Monitoring .... JJB 05:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how these are the same debates but if you say so. Now if I were using your logic, the appearance of an IP to accuse me would be suspicious but I'm going to assume good faith and refrain from doing so. Your claims that I canvassed and accusations against Eraserhead as well, who I had never previously interacted with up to this point, are bogus. WikiManOne 05:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I make no accusation against Eraserhead1, whom ordinarily I'd advise you to notify, but I already did the notification a few minutes before you mentioned the name "Eraserhead1" for the first time. The other markers in your current comment I will leave for others to analyze. JJB 05:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of canvassing
1, 2, 3, 4 is there any reasons that the previous isn't canvassing? - Haymaker (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Nonrandom break
I believe I have now amassed enough evidence above of canvassing and perhaps other ANI-appropriate behavior to politely repeat my request for admin guidance. JJB 05:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ugh, its nearly impossible to respond to your numerous accusations spread out and added to posts that I have already replied to. Your accusation that I canvassed Situsi is ridiculous on more than one level, I clearly stated in my post that I didn't know which way he would state, he is simply someone's opinion who I hold high regard for and wanted to hear what he had to say when the move became controversial. Furthermore, he did not take a position in that discussion, confirming that I did not contact him expecting a "yes" vote. For those interested in the full conversation rather than those which JJB seems to conveniently show, it is here. As for Eraserhead1, after I undid someone (Haymaker, I believe, correctly) reverting the current Anti-abortion article back to a redirect to the Pro-life article, he pointed me towards the moving discussion process which is why I notified him when I took him up on his suggestion. Again, I did not know whether he would support it or not, he did turn out to support, but since I had no way of knowing, this was clearly not a case of canvassing. That said, I have no plans of further comment until an uninvolved admin takes this over. WikiManOne 06:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't feel canvassed, given I suggested making a move request it would almost have been rude not to contact me. I have have no previous interaction with WikiManOne. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I too was surprised to see a polite request on my talk page being the source of this ANI thread. If there is going to be "admin guidance" I hope it is in the direction of why to avoid embittering a topic debate with accusations against the opposing debaters. Repeating my !vote, I think self-description is a better source for article names than deciding by fiat which tiny soundbite, "pro-life" or "anti-abortion", better describes the opinion of other people. I myself am "pro-choice" (or perhaps "baby-killer-enabling" if my opponents were choosing the name to describe my own beliefs.) betsythedevine (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Blatant Vandalism At Planned Parenthood Page W/Administrative Abuse

 * Moved this section up here to keep debates on the same topic together. JJB 05:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

attempted vandalism in removing the Controversies/Criticism section to replace it with a clearly apologetic piece with no mention of controversies, bashing the pro-life movement and mentioning anti-pro-choice violence without mention of anti-pro-life violence, even though the section is supposedly about controversies surrounding Planned Parenthood, not the pro-life movement.


 * Removal of section
 * Vandalism revert

Explained in depth on the Talk:Planned_Parenthood page why this was vandalism and objectionable, and provided an alternative edit for shortening the section. Another user strongly objected to the proposed edit as well.

WikiManOne then had admin page protect after having his edit made, to effectively remove all mention of controversies from the page. He also made his original edit to the page just minutes after I cited the Wikipedia Controversies and Criticism section on a Huffington Post article, making this appear a ploy by a member there to eliminate mention on the page of the recent scandal until public scrutiny blows over, and buy the page some time without mention of any controversies on it, and only information favorable to Planned Parenthood there.

NOTES: This was previously reported in the Vandalism section but has been moved here per request.--67.176.248.164 (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever admin evaluates this incident, kindly read the talk page on Planned Parenthood. It is clear that this IP user was not speaking in good faith. Also, 3RR was not violated. WikiManOne 04:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, you might want to notify NuclearWarfare as well. I haven't communicated with him and won't be. WikiManOne 04:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, I have notified NuclearWarfare as well. I did attempt to speak in good faith, but the edit and subsequent page protection left no doubt as to the nature of the vandalism and intent of the edit in my mind, so I stated what was happening, while still seeking to remain civil, as will appear evident from a reading of the discussion. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 05:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Whatever the appropriateness of the removal of the controversy section, NuclearWarfare's action was clearly within the bounds of admin discretion and an appropriate measure within an edit war. If you disagree with protection for this edit dispute, you should approach him directly. --B (talk) 05:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been talking with IP user 67.176.*.* at their Talk page and provided some info on WP:ROLLBACK and WP:RPP. I think part of the issue here was a lack of understanding as to WikiManOne's Rollback rights and what they entailed. I'm hoping that will help de-escalate the matter somewhat. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 05:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think I have communicated with WikiManOne before, certainly never with regards to this situation. I was directed to the article not from anyone alerting me to it, but by a post that I happened to see on MastCell's talk page. The protection policy explains why I fully protected the page. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 05:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how the protection policy supports protecting a page AFTER removal of a long-term section on controversies without prior discussion and while consensus to such effect is being achieved on the talk page. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't remember any interactions with you either NW, its unfortunate that the IP continues to spin such wild conspiracy theories as he did on the article talk page. WikiManOne 05:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

My first take is just that NuclearWarfare just entered the (I presume) edit war at the wrong moment for the IP. In this case WikiManOne appears to be on the side deleting sourced material, and while it is controversial it is certainly undue weight to delete old material not related to the current news story. It might have been better if worked into another section of the article, but the deletion side appears to be the more unduly weighted. In general, especially if it's only 24 hours, the IP is best counseled to collaborate on a draft as well as possible and wait out the block. However, this activity is interesting when grouped with the other two sections of this page immediately previous. JJB 05:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I had noticed with interest the mention of other abortion-related API incidents occurring at this time, when writing this up here. Whether correlation could be at work I have no idea.
 * As seen from the Planned Parenthood talk page, I was making a good faith effort to aid those who criticized the current controversies section for being too lengthy in providing a shorter, more concise version, and in trying to reach consensus on tone to achieve NPOV and suitable sourcing. My proposed edits on the talk page would have shortened older material considerably, which is why it was astonishing that an admin would take the extraordinary measure of eliminating all inclusion of controversial material for a recent edit, and preserving the edit with page protection at a time when controversy surrounding said institution is prominent in the news, and attempts at reaching consensus for a revised section acceptable to all were ongoing.
 * The administrative intervention was clearly inappropriate, as were the repeated edit attempts, and thus why this API is required. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 05:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to repeat that I have asked numerous times to collaborate in working on a new NPOV version of the controversies section, it seems IP is making noticeboard reports after it was clear that he would be unable to achieve is desired edits through consensus as consensus was that if these "stings" were to be included at all, they should be included very briefly along with criticism of them. I reiterate my willingness to discuss this issue on the article talk page and work towards an amicable solution that attains consensus. This is what I have been asking for all along on this article. With that said, I plan to make no further comment unless I am asked to. WikiManOne 05:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * After it was clear I wouldn't? The page protection occurred less than a day after my proposed edits - no one had yet provided feedback of ANY kind on my proposed edits. Why in the world would I have thought the edits wouldn't be included, apart from the step of an administrator stepping in to remove all mention of controversies from the page?
 * I would point out that there was discussion occurring on the page about the edits, and that it was you who then quietly removed the whole section again after a day of discussion, and less than an hour later, NuclearWar protected the page to preserve from change your removal of all mention of controversies.
 * Planned Parenthood page history
 * --67.176.248.164 (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * @IP: Around here there is an old rule that admins need not endorse the version they freeze, which IMHO is a weakness of the system, but it's the standard practice, and I should add that NuclearWarfare is generally evenhanded. If you can show talk-page consensus to NuclearWarfare, there is the possibility of the freeze lifting early. I now see that WikiManOne started the conversation by removing the whole section as if to hash it out on talk, but later edit-warred in favor of his version for that section instead of leaving it blank. I'll bring that up to NuclearWarfare as well myself. Incidentally, note spelling of ANI. JJB 06:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright... I didn't really object to the time period of the page block itself, as one day is a short period to wait, but given the horrible nature of the edit in question, the intervention of an admin to protect it was clearly abuse of power, which was what led me to bring this up here before it got out of hand. I.e., I was concerned what the intervention was foreshadowing, in terms of an admin stepping in to protect removal of controversies from the page contrary to any opposition from the Talk Discussion's members. Otherwise, I could have seen him stepping in to protect the page longer or reverting attempts afterward to renew the section after it had been removed in the claims of stopping an edit war, when it was WikiManOne who started the edit war by removing a section despite opposition on the talk page. I have no problem with letting the discussion on the talk page bear itself out, I mainly just was concerned that the administrative abuse would get out of hand. Also, have taken note of my typos, and will correct that in the future, thanks. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 06:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

My response: Here is my account of what took place as I remember it right now, I might have missed some thing and some thing might be out of order,this is a rough outline. WikiManOne 06:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I noticed that a discussion had begun on the talk page, and I stated that I would WP:BEBOLD and work on an edit that day.
 * I began a section asking for collaboration and created a bare-bones version of the Controversy section that would not provide undue weight, I then participated in discussions but due to real life had to take a break. When I returned, substantial edits have been made which certainly constituted undue weight. This "controversy" section consisted of roughly 2/5ths of the article and included references to supposed "racism" of the founder and others. Many of the "stings" mentioned were also, imo, undue-weight, many small issues by fringe anti-abortion groups were given their whole paragraph. From my reading of the talk page, it was clear that consensus was not on the side of including large paragraphs on each instance of an attack on planned parenthood and that the all the stings should be mentioned in a sentence or two.
 * NuclearWarfare issued protection to the page without any involvement on my part. It was merely coincidental.
 * Again, I do believe that more coverage of the "stings" may be appropriate, but this needs to be discussed on the talk page, as consensus clearly is not on the side of readding the paragraphs in mass. If the admin who addresses this issue would like any more comment from me on this issue, please ping me on my talk page, this page is not in my watch list.
 * Well, thanks for your response here and at Talk:Planned Parenthood. That might be enough to keep you out of trouble another day. As you collaborate, keep in mind that your barebones version just might not be neutral. OTOH, replying to one user in many places is just part of multithreaded life to get used to. When it gets hot, it's better to not micromanage all conversations. JJB 06:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I also want to add, as I stated on the article talk page, I did not intend for my bare-bones version to be immediately added to the article, I meant it to be added to in the talk page and once consensus had been achieved to be added to the article. Unfortunately, some editors seemed to be of the view that this was not the case and readded the old controversy section that was riddled with problems. I then added my bare bones version which I thought would be preferable and which had more consensus behind it than the old version to the article. There were a number of reversions and at some point, Nuclear Warfare came in and protected the article. I might add more later but I have to write a 5 page essay for school, which is what brought this article to my attention yesterday anyway. WikiManOne 06:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * First, let me say that I'll drop the case for now, with the understanding that consensus on a suitable section on controversies should be achieved via discussion on the talk page, rather than instituted by a single user and then page protected by an admin afterward. I wanted this brought up before it got out of hand, primarily, so the purpose has been achieved so long as talk page discussion will now be allowed to continue once more, my primary objective.


 * Secondly, in response to WikiManOne, let me say that from point of view, I cited the Controversies & Criticisms section on a news article's comments, and then a few hours later, it disappeared from the Wikipedia page. Then on the Talk:Planned_Parenthood page, I see no prior discussion over the past month about recent changes, and suddenly a recent section is posted there by WikiManOne. I revert the recent change as vandalism, shocked that the whole section would be removed without prior attempts at consensus, and writing it off as vandalism given what is inherently a clearly inappropriate and objectionable edit.


 * Just by looking at the page history for the Planned Parenthood page I could see the current controversies section had existed in its apparent current state for at least the past year, and thus wrote the change off as vandalism by a member with an agenda, and boldly reverted. I can't imagine what WikiManOne means when saying "When I returned, substantial edits have been made which certainly constituted undue weight" given that the section appeared to have existed for over a year, so his absence must have been long indeed.


 * What I saw was a unilateral decision to remove all mention of the controversies from the page, coincidentally at the same time the first major news controversy surrounding Planned Parenthood had come up for some time. The timing was not coincidental, and one shouldn't just remove a long-time controversies section without discussion. I therefore expressed my displeasure on the talk page, perhaps with more annoyance than I should have - though I sought to remain as civil as I could without giving the edit more credit than it should get (I STILL think it very inappropriate and blatantly biased) - and sought to achieve consensus in changing the section to make the longtime controversies section conform to new demands on its length and sourcing.


 * I even went to great lengths to write an in-depth proposed edit which drastically reduced the section's size, and rather than boldly editing, offered it up on the discussion page first. Nobody had responded yet when admin NuclearWar stepped in right after WikiManOne began an edit war with other users, as seen from the page history, that I didn't even know about at the time or participate in, and have just been noticing recently, to protect the page with its recent deletion of the longtime controversies section (the huge bulk of which had been on the page for over a year, maybe many years - I haven't checked how long exactly). The edit was inappropriate, the administrative intervention was inappropriate, and I won't apologize for bringing this up like I did, as I'm probably letting off the hook here those who will participate in future such incidents. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 06:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The bottom line is that A) a section containing information on controversies existed on the page for over a year, intact, without change. B) That section was removed without prior discussion. C) When that change was made, 2 members - myself included - complained on the talk page discussion, and I reverted. D) I proposed edits seeking to attain consensus to make the longtime section meet new requests for updating. E) The whole section was reverted to remove all mention of controversies again by WikiManOne a day later, who then had an edit war with another member (not myself) as seen on the page history. F) An admin stepped in to protect the removal of all mention of controversies. G) All of this occurs as Planned Parenthood undergoes a recent controversy in the news.


 * All of this was gone to to prevent discussion on the talk page from reaching a consensus. It removed a section on controversies that had been intact over a year at the same time it's undergoing public notoriety. A user did not attempt to create a section with discussion agreement, simply used edit warring to protect a removal of all content related to controversies, and then an admin promptly protected their content-removing edit with a page block to prevent new changes. Now, interpret this however you will, but it doesn't look good. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 07:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

As a occasional editor of that article I think NuclearWarfare's protection of the page, while possessing unfortunate timing, was standard procedure for a flare up like that. No consensus has emerged on the talk page for the removal of that material and I'm sure as soon as the page protection wares off it will be re-added. If wikimanone continues to remove it it will be pretty clear cut vandalism. - Haymaker (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The protection policy is clear about this sort of this sort of thing: "On pages that are experiencing edit warring, temporary full protection can force the parties to discuss their edits on the talk page, where they can reach consensus...When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons...Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own position in a content dispute." I have no position in this content dispute. It is clear that there is no consensus either way whether or not to include this material or not. If there is consensus to include a particular wording of the section, please submit a request at WP:RFPP to unprotect the article. If you need assistance in attaining consensus, WP:3O and WP:RFC are useful first-choice options. Immediate reversions after the protection wears off without attaining consensus will be met by blocks. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 14:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:POINTy move discussion at Talk:Pro-choice
WikiManOne has now opened a move discussion at Talk:Pro-choice which he explicitly says that he does not even support. There's a common factor to all this disruption, and it needs to stop. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That was in response to this:
 * Oppose Unless you are going to propose to change "pro-choice" to something similar so that our "international" audience can understand it better.  ArcAngel   (talk) ) 04:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I think that should also be renamed (as this should be renamed), though to what is less obvious. abortion-access is a possibility. 64.229.101.119 (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)"
 * But with that, I'm going to go work on my paper that I've been needing to work on... WikiManOne 07:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that the user is on a crusade to bend those articles in the direction he wants. Crusaders are typically dealt with eventually. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think the proper admin action is sufficiently in focus now, and should be so for more than 31 hours. In addition, though, the admin should consider Talk:Planned Parenthood, which concurs with the above, for whether the section should be blanked or the article unlocked. It also appears that I neglected a significant aspect: what I called the IP's preferred version appears to me now to be the longtime stable version, while what I called WikiManOne's preferred version appears to be a newly thrown-together apologetic, suggesting that the IP's version was much more neutral than I thought. Neutral admin, please don't let the news cycle permit system-gamed nonneutrality to continue much longer. JJB 08:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I back JJB's view of the planned parenthood quagmire. - Haymaker (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would advice Wikiman to peruse WP:ACTIVISM, for a good analysis on why this kind of behavior is unacceptable.--  Novus    Orator     08:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, so now I'm the one introducing bias to the article? Please note that clear consensus existed that this material should not be in the article in its previous form. This appears to be a hoard of anti-choice crusaders who are aghast that someone with (horrors!) a pro-choice bias would be so bold as to question the undue weight they placed on criticism of PP. Please look at the information I removed and be so kind as to specify how this is this discussion on racism and eugenics with dubious sources is appropriate? Now if you will excuse me, I have a paper to work on tomorrow and some sleep to get in the meantime. While you're at it, please specify exactly which wikipedia policy or guideline I violated in my edits? When a unbiased administrator chooses to look at the facts of the case, I will be happy to answer any questions he might have. WikiManOne 10:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked at the section in question and the "sting operations" section probably dwells more than as needed on the details of each incident, but the removal of that and the removal of the well-sourced and not overly-wordy "legal troubles" section seems excessive. A possible solution if you perceive a problem of the controversy section being too large relative to the size of the article is, instead of removing good content, to add more content.  Instead of having a separate controversy section, you could write about the history of Planned Parenthood and work the various incidents in at their appropriate spot in the narrative. --B (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND
"Wikipedia is not a place to ... carry on ideological battles." There will always be such battles here, but do we really have to waste everyone's time with the unbearably obvious ones? Get it together people.Griswaldo (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Whack!
 * On that note, can we close this discussion? There's no admin action required here. --B (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed old Pro-Life/Pro-death  and Pro-Choice/Pro-totalitarianism-Pro-Theocracy  discussion is Drama inducing WP:POINT violations The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree with B per my last just above, this calls for something with a few more troutpower than just one. JJB 15:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You tell me exactly what it is that you want an administrator to do. The Planned Parenthood page will unprotect itself in a few hours, taking care of that problem.  If an uninvolved admin wants to close the pro-choice thing, they can, but the reality of it is that the page obviously is not going to be renamed.  No legitimate encyclopedia would even have this debate - it's patently silly.  But plenty of the debates on Wikipedia are patently silly, so that's nothing new. --B (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Marta11
is persistently reposting material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. I suggest a permanent ban. --bender235 (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Insufficient disruptive activity, unless you're accusing the editor of being a sockpuppet of one of the earlier ones. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Orangemike indefinite block of User:Smuconlaw
All right. was an account apparently used by a professor of law at Singapore Management University under which he gave his students assignments on Wikipedia and worked with them to improve and create some much needed high-quality Singapore-related articles. About an hour ago,, without any prior discussion here or with the user, made the sudden decision to block the account as a group account and deleted the user's userpage as advertising. Having previously reviewed Smuconlaw's submissions at DYK I think this is a total over-reaction without finding out any hard facts and we are potentially losing a very, very useful contributor here. I am astounded by this and call for a further review. Not being an admin I can't see the userpage so I can't tell if it was truly G11-able, so I'll defer on that, but the indefinite block is harsh imo. Orangemike is aware of this ANI thread. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 16:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The userpage was being used as a syllabus for a class, and as a way for the class to interact on Wikipedia. Even if it's permittable under a strict reading of G11, it was a pretty inappropriate use of a userpage. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Since I was discussing this with Orangemike on his talkpage, I'll chime in here and say that I too am opposed to the block. I think that the problem is a mismatch between the terminology used on the userpage, which makes Orangemike think this is a role account as opposed to an alternate account used for an educational project.  The contents of the userpage were in my opinion within the bounds of what I'd expect on the page for an educational project, and I'm certainly no softie on advertising pages. Syrthiss (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've restored the userpage, as it clearly wasn't promotion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * And Smuconlaw is listed on School_and_university_projects, so its not like the account was trying to hide under the radar. Syrthiss (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. If it's been there for over a year and nobody's objected before now, I don't think there's an issue -- it's certainly a lot easier to point students at User:Smuconlaw than School and university projects/SMU Constitutional and Administrative Law Wikipedia Project. If I see an unblock request for the professor, I'll unblock at that time, unless OrangeMike undoes it first. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's a bad block he shouldn't be made to beg for an unblock, he should be unblocked with an apology.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't want to make him beg, I just want to find out what he wants to do before doing it. He might decide that reorganizing the project is better.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * AGF much? Or maybe we should just block all editors until they can prove they should be unblocked. DuncanHill (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How would a continued block be preventing disruption of the pedia? Couldn't that discussion take place post unblock?--Cube lurker (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We should be commending this user's efforts to bring Wikipedia into the classroom, not blocking him for it. WP:Ambassador / ƒETCH COMMS  /  16:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Unblock immediately. Absolutely ridiculous block. -Atmoz (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yet another ridiculous block. It's about time the block button was removed from most administrators. Malleus Fatuorum 16:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Concur, ridiculous. Unblock, apologise, and suggest an introduction to Ambassadors, some editors who actually like having academics on Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

So: I was to ignore the existence of what was clearly and openly declared to be a role account? I don't pretend to be infallible, but I am a trifle disturbed at the hostility I'm getting for (from everybody but Syrthiss) doing what I perceived to be the right thing. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm not being hostile. I just don't see what you saw. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is an unfortunate example of WP:CREEP in action, and the prime opportunity to have applied IAR. This looks to be an active and well managed syllabus contributing correct content to the Wiki. At least the first step would be discussion to clarify the account usage! --Errant (chat!) 16:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If percieved hostility makes you upset, just imagine how you'd feel if you'd been indef blocked.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the reaction here seems to be oddly divergent from what I thought was established policy. m:Role account seems to make it pretty clear that the only role accounts authorized are for WMF functions and that others are to be blocked, regardless of how useful they are.  If the account is being used exclusively by that one professor, then he needs to make that clear and not leave it up to the imagination. --B (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Unless there is strong evidence that the account is shared, we should assume that the account corresponds to policy. I don't state that my account is used exclusively by one person (hey, there are plenty of Stephan Schulz out there). And in fact, your account suggests that its shared by all people whose name starts with "B" (Blair, Bush, Bugatti, Becquerel...;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * A role account is defined as an account shared by multiple people. I see no evidence that anyone but the professor has access to the account. Sorry, but this is a hasty and mistaken block. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the page itself, it belongs to " the SMU Constitutional and Administrative Law Wikipedia Project". -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see "belongs" there, I see a welcome message. On the other hand, I do see that the account is "managed by Assistant Professor Jack Tsen-Ta Lee", which to me clearly seems to be an individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephan Schulz (talk • contribs)
 * Probably because, in case you didn't realise, the userpage is being used as the main project page for the assignments (the link Syrthiss provided above redirects to the userpage). It doesn't mean that the user is the entire project's participants. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 17:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Where does it say this? Perhaps since you can't read you should step down as an administrator. -Atmoz (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh come on. What's with the recent push for everyone to yell for resignation for any admin that gets mentioned here? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Because there is nothing on that page that indicates that more than one person uses it. Because OrangeMike suggested otherwise, I doubt his cognitive abilities to use the administrative tools. -Atmoz (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And based on your performance here, I'm doubting your cognitive abilities to read WP:NPA. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ermmm... The first sentence of the userpage in question? (I'll ignore the gratuitous insult.) -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No. If you think that, you're too dumb to even try to edit an encyclopedia. -Atmoz (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Mike, there was no evidence of bad faith and ample evidence of good contributions, yet you chose the "block first, talk later" approach. Why? DuncanHill (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Welcome to the SMU Constitutional and Administrative Law Wikipedia Project, managed by Assistant Professor Jack Tsen-Ta Lee of the School of Law, Singapore Management University." That's the first sentence. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * - note - the account has been unblocked by user Orangemike - Off2riorob (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have informed the editor of the unblock, as no-one else could be bothered to. DuncanHill (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec)Mike, "not blocking" is not the same as "ignoring". I know many admins feel the only response ever available to them for anything is to block, but I would like to inform you that you can actually try talking to editors with whom you perceive a problem. It would certainly have been much more appropriate than blocking in this case. DuncanHill (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As per HelloAnnyong's comment, the administrators here do a good job and its not easy and we are all human and unless there is a pattern of abuse of the tools, which this clearly isn't then rather than being upset because of a single unsupported action, we should be thanking the contributor for the other thousand uncontested actions. Orangemike has unblocked and there is nothing left to see here. 17:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk)

Concur that some gentle discussion should have happened before considering a block. Plus, a hard block for a possible group account? Also not the greatest idea. But everyone's unblocked and maybe someone can have that gentle discussion now if it really seems necessary (which I don't think it does). Recommend wrapping this up. Wknight94 talk 17:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree that it's time to close and move on. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 17:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Not time to close. Mike was way out of line, and if he had bothered to ask he would have been shewn this previous discussion. Very poor behaviour by him. DuncanHill (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello. I'm coming late to this discussion and it's already moot, but I should just point out that I'm surprised that this issue has come up again. It first arose when I ran the project for the first time in 2010, and at that time I confirmed that I am the only person using this account: see "User talk:Smuconlaw/2010 archive" (as DuncanHill has pointed out). Also, note that the project instructions at "User:Smuconlaw" specifically require all students to register their own usernames. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Prof. Lee, at the time of the initial discussion, User:DriftyDoor suggested "maybe you could add a note to your userpage indicating the fact that this account is run by a single person, to avoid being perceived as a group account?" and you said you had done so. The language which tripped my alarms, and led to the block, was the first sentence, which clearly states that this page is the Project's page, and that you were merely managing it. I regret the entire misunderstanding, but would earnestly plead that you change the first sentence's wording to something much less ambiguous, so that no such unfortunate incidents could take place in the future. Please be aware that we deal on a daily basis with a number of "projects", "teams" and the like whose purpose in Wikipedia is to publicize their institution, company or agenda; and that as a result we administrators can become somewhat jaundiced towards anything that looks like a possible violation of the role account prohibitions. I hope we can put this all behind us now, leaving me properly scolded, and go on about our mutual project of improving Wikipedia. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * See also Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive590, where this was discussed in October. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * @Smuconlaw, Yes, I'd say this was just a poor decision on multiple levels. Please accept our apologies and pretend this didn't happen.  Consider OrangeMike slapped.  As you were...  Wknight94 talk 17:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, its easy done to action something in good faith that has without your knowledge been previously discussed, the user self reverted asap, which is very clearly strongly in his favor - anyways, in preference to - this is less heat than light I think closure of this thread will archive is beneficial. Off2riorob (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Recommend Close Thread : Too much drama. Per HelloAnnyong & Off2riorob's comments mistakes occasionally happen. No need for torches and pitchforks. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 17:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Need Admin Opinions
has been adding 2010 population stats from a "Weldon Cooper Center" (found at coopercenter.org) to several Virginia town and city articles. I have never heard of this "Weldon Cooper Center" and generally population stats come directly from the U.S. Census Bureau, which will release their stats between now and April (depending on the size of the town). Should the stats going to the "Weldon Cooper Center" be reverted per AGF as an unreliable source or what? - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 19:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean, the University of Virginia's Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service? I'd treat that as reliable until proven otherwise. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that's not really an administrative question regardless (it's about content); issues about RS should go to WP:RSN (usually only in the case where there's an actual dispute); the Cooper Center appears to be part of the University of Virginia and looks pretty legitimate; but using US census figures directly is probably better IMO, since those are the same figures the Cooper Center uses anyway. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with quoting a source that is primarily a restatement of another source, (i.e. a local newspaper that runs an Associated Press story.) From the looks of this situation, the University of Virginia site seems to be synthesizing the Census data as it pertains to Virginia, and seems to be a better formatted source to quote than the Adobe Flash-based Census site. -- RoninBK T C 20:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Okie Dokie, just wanted to make sure things were on the up and up. Thanks for the responses. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 20:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle abuse
User:Nickkid5 placed an undiscussed tag on Density, and unlinked it from numerous pages. Based on the user's history of contributions, it looks like a prank. Blacklist from WP:Twinkle? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Appears to be ~200 pages. I think they've all been un-unlinked. DMacks (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Only if he does it again. Could have been an accident... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, seems sensible. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just as a note, there is no need to discuss adding before adding it, and it can be removed by anyone if the article is not being heavily edited. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to blacklist if he does it again - simple indef is good enough. T. Canens (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

United States Navy Special Warfare Development Group
I have twice restored removal of sourced text here under WP:Wikipedia is not censored, but we're also not Wikileaks. Can someone double-check me on this?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've given the other editor a 3RR warning. Haven't gotten to the source yet - does it confirm the material being removed? Alternatively, does this material really add a whole lot to this article? UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * For form's sake, I should note that you've reverted 3 times as well - I'm assuming you'll read this rather than a template on your talk page. Let's back off a bit and figure out where consensus lies, ok? UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Bueno, thanks. I'm off it for now.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This actually involves two articles - The above United States Navy Special Warfare Development Group article and the United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group. The removal from the "Naval" article is a section that begins with the idea that the subject's organization "can only be speculated upon", and proceeds to speculate for two paragraphs. I don't have an issue with that removal, though it should have been discussed first. The "Navy" article, meanwhile, is a sourced statement about the structure of the organization - and that shouldn't really be removed without discussion, if the source is indeed reliable. I don't think, personally, that it adds a whole lot to the article, but that's just me. I'd like to hear from others, though. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If someone more knowledgeable than I wants to tackle the merge, these are on the exact same topic with slightly different but useful variations. I am not married to the stuff staying, I am just against censorship of published material in an international encyclopedia not beholden to a single set of classified rules.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I can work on it. I've also blocked User:LMT1978 31 hours for edit warring, as they ignored my notice and reverted again (once on each article). UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I see several discussions on both talk pages encouraging a merge, and I see no sourced information at the "Navy" article (apart from the bit under dispute, but that's discussed at the "Naval" article anyway). Since everything substantive is already at the "Naval" article, would a redirect be in order? Or a full history merge? UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would do a history merge to preserve it, and some of the stuff (graphics) differ.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The only image in the Navy article is also in the Naval one, so images look ok. I'll take a crack at the histmerge later. Note also that LMT1978 was blocked indef for dropping a legal threat into his/her unblock request. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 21:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Someone probably needs to take the source, specialoperations.com, being cited in United States Navy Special Warfare Development Group, to the reliable sources noticeboard at some point. They don't appear to have come up before, they're used quite extensively and it's not at all obvious that they are reliable for anything. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 14:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅. History merge complete, everything is now at the "Naval" article, and the "Navy" article redirects. I did not history-merge the talk pages, though the navy talk page redirects to the naval talk page. If I screwed something up, feel free to trout me and fix it. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * These articles seem like poor histmerge candidates due to parallel histories, per WP:How to fix cut-and-paste moves. Histmerging dissimilar pages interleaves their histories and creates large, useless diffs like this. Ultraexactzz, thanks for being willing to do the histmerge and performing it correctly. Flatscan (talk) 05:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Terra Novus in Violation of Community Topic Ban on Creationism/Pseudoscience
Terra Novus was Banned here from discussions and articles involving Creationism/Pseudoscience Topic Area Broadly Defined. Admin User:Dougweller closed and notified him of the ban. Since Then One Admin (User:Will Beback) Warned him for an infraction and I have warned him for another. Today I thumbed through his contributions and found multiple infractions Exhibit A Exhibit Exhibit C

This Seems pretty Straight forward to me and needing of appropriate action. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree the two article edits are at the very least right on the line, but the Bigfin Squid article and image seem unrelated to Pseudoscience or Creationism. How is that AFD related to the topic ban?
 * Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My bad. I thought that those edits would not fall under this ban due to their content, but I will take that page off of my watchlist.--  Novus    Orator     03:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. You must stay away from anything to do with cryptozoology which is linked to both Creationism and Pseudoscience. Dougweller (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Perseus, Son of Zeus odd behavior?


In the space of a few minutes, the above user has added material to the encyclopedia, reverted said material, came here to request a revdel, removed the request once it was complete, requested deletion of their userpage with a G7, blanked their talk page that contained a question from me about the first part of this sequence, and now changed both their userpage and usertalk to wikibreak notices 'for exams'. Is anyone else suspicious that this is a compromised account? I don't have much exposure to this editor so I don't know if this is S.O.P for them, and didn't see any indication that they are under mentorship or anything. Syrthiss (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's SOP, actually. Mentoring might not be a bad thing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about getting a mentor a few days before, I looked for a list of "mentors". Couldn't finnd one. --<font face="Times"> Perseus, Son  of Zeus  ✉ sign here 18:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, I do have exams. --<font face="Times"> Perseus, Son  of Zeus  ✉ sign here 18:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters is one list you could pick from. Good luck with the exams. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm already adopted by Derild4921, I'm looking for a mentor, like a second view besides the adopter. --<font face="Times"> Perseus, Son  of Zeus  ✉ sign here 18:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My account was just compromised, probably because I left the computer on and was still signed in. --<font face="Times"> Perseus, Son  of Zeus  ✉ sign here 19:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Generally, compromised accounts are blocked indefinitely. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  19:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the rather trivial circumstances of the problem, perhaps this is a good time to reconsider that general approach. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, please don't block me... --<font face="Times"> Perseus, Son  of Zeus  ✉ sign here 19:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * DNBTT? 71.141.88.54 (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a block is necessary here, Persus has his account back, maybe just an evil glare is all that is needed. T ofutwitch11  <font color="Orange">(T ALK ) 21:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Fetchcomms/Children and Wikipedia . / ƒETCH COMMS  /  21:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * See, that's the issue. We don't know if Perseus has his account back or if it's still compromised. I won't take action here if there's no consensus for a block, but I think there should be some conversation about it. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  22:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your right to say that its odd, I would wait to see if anything else happens (vandalism etc) under his name before taking action. T ofutwitch11  <font color="Orange">(T ALK ) 22:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note this edit which indicates account is compromised: . Also, should someone consider revdeleting the content? <font face="Lucida Calligraphy"> PrincessofLlyr royal court 22:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * After seeing that, I have indefinitely blocked the account as compromised. Discussion is, of course, welcome. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  22:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess we will have to see if he requests an unblock. T ofutwitch11  <font color="Orange">(T ALK ) 22:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Arakunem Talk 02:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I see Fetchcomms promotes an essay of his above, but doesn't mention that he himself would be considered a "child" by some people's yardsticks. Also the essay needs some copy-editing. I'll attend to that later. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would be considered a child by some people's yardsticks ... do you care to elaborate on this statement? I'm sure you're not alluding to my actual age, which I have never disclosed onwiki because I do not think it should be a factor in how people will inevitably judge me. Is your comment supposed to come off rather cold, or am I just misreading it? / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We WP editors are by some yardstick all children of Jimbo and Whatsisname, so don't worry about it. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 06:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And I'm back. In a new account, with permission. --Perseus8235 (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And now blocked again. I guess we're waiting for some sort of confirmation that this really the same person. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Savelephant
Can an uninvolved editor take a look at the talk page of. I don't think much of his/case but others may feel differently. Probably best if discussion happens there. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. –Moondyne 06:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've given them a welcome and some advice. Mjroots (talk) 07:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Bizarrely heated external link discussion in need of cooler heads
Can a few folks please look into this discussion at the External Links noticeboard and the parties involved? It seems to be the latest in a running battle between a few different editors and it's really getting out of hand if you look into the different interactions they're having there and elsewhere. This particular interaction seem notable to me but it would be good to have others look into this and help cool things down, perhaps with some wise words, warnings, or more drastic action. ElKevbo (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I was hoping that someone would have looked into this. I've been subjected to an unmitigated, and continuing, stream of abuse. Amongst others, and this is by no means a complete list - Incivility:"LMFAO", "Return of the Clown""FUCKOFF""LMFAO", Canvassing, "FYI", False edit summaries:"Fix", "Vandalism", "m", etc, etc, etc. I've sought with reasoned, civil, discussion to address issues such as the suitability of undergraduate student essay's and self-flagged guesses on subjects beyond a ref's area of expertise - nothing I've done calls for such a wave of aggressive trolling, I am astonished that it is allowed to happen at such a level for so long even while other editors complain at the WP:ELN and here. 99.135.168.164 (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've just noticed, with great sadness for the project, that the editor who contacted another above in my ref regrading "canvassing", the same two editors who jointly caused the disruption and complaints at WP:ELN noted above - has just minutes ago jokingly lamented his and his canvassing buddy's falling behind in the vote to win the award for "Tag Team Editing"(1) on Wikipedia. Are there any enforceable standards left here, or is at all just a joke? 99.135.168.164 (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've just noticed this. I thought subjects of discussions at ANI were supposed to be notified.  Nevertheless, for anyone who things that I have the slightest bit of interest in what happens at Wikipedia Review - .  Perhaps that will put my recent post on Malleus's talk page in its proper context. Parrot of Doom 19:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism At Planned Parenthood Talk Page
While trying to reach a discussion consensus at the Talk:Planned Parenthood page, user keeps collapsing my replies.


 * 3rd collapsed comment
 * 2nd collapsed comment
 * 1st collapsed comment and here

A summary is now provided on the talk page of the previous events as follows, which included 5 reverts of material that had been on the page's controversy section for multiple years:

1. The previous Controversies section had much of the same content until the past week that it had:
 * 1 year ago
 * 2 years ago
 * 3 years ago
 * 4 years ago

2. A recent scandal made headlines for Planned Parenthood videos surfacing claiming to show proper reporting by the institution, similar to past scandals.
 * Washington Post
 * ABC News
 * Reuters
 * Associated Press

3. WikiManOne on February 2nd deletes the controversies section entirely, without prior discussion here on the board, replacing it with a version void of controversy mention, and defending Planned Parenthood. Half an hour later, I revert it as vandalism. An IP address of 98.154.76.21 then removes the section again. PhGustaf restores the section. WikiManOne, despite the discussion seen above here on the Talk Page attempting to find consensus, again removes the whole section on controversies a 2nd time.
 * 08:03, WikiManOne 1st section removal
 * 08:30, I restore section 1st time
 * 21:18, 98.154.76.21 section removal
 * 21:37, PhGustaf 1st section restore
 * 23:29 WikiManOne 2nd section removal

4. On February 3rd, PhGustaf restores the section a 2nd time. WikiManOne then removes the section a 3rd time. Haymaker returns the controversy section. Sitush removes it. I restore it. A member named NYankees51 then makes some edits with new sections not discussed. WikiManOne again removes the entire controversies section a 4th time. Kenatipo restores the controversy section, asking in his notes for discussion. Sitush removes the section again. Kenatipo restores it. WikiManOne removes the section a 5th time.
 * 03:07, PhGustaf 2nd section restore
 * 03:13, WikiManOne 3rd section removal
 * 09:22, Haymaker restore
 * 09:35, Sitush 1st section removal
 * 10:22, I restore 2nd time
 * 15:12, NYankees51 edit
 * 19:23 WikiManOne 4th section removal
 * 19:35, Kenatipo 1st restore
 * 19:38, Sitush 2nd section removal
 * 20:08, Kenatipo 2nd restore
 * 20:11, WikiManOne 5th section removal

5. Admin NuclearWarfare on February 3rd protects WikiManOne's removal of the section, even though it was just him and Sitush trying to remove it with myself, Kenatipo, Haymaker, PhGustaf, and Jgabbard all in favor of having the section restored.
 * 21:04, NuclearWarfare page protection

On February 4th, Admin MSCJ then blanks the whole controversies section because WikiManOne requests it.
 * 16:23, MSCJ blanking

All of this can be seen from the Planned Parenthood page history. Let me know if I've missed anything. I was looking over it all, and just now realizing how much the 'consensus' for section removal has consisted solely of WikiManOne, Sitush, and a 98 something IP address, with at least 5 people, myself included, all opposed and reverting the removal.

Because of the actions of 2 users, Sitush and WikiManOne, a whole section has been removed that existed much in its current state for the past three years, despite being outnumbered at least 5 to 3 when it comes to consensus. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As far as my involvement was concerned with reverts, it was done so because I felt that there was a genuine and ongoing disagreement taking place regarding POV, undue weight, tone etc and, as I said repeatedly in the discussion, I felt it better not to include in the article something that was clearly generating some considerable angst until the differences were resolved. Simple as that. I neither agreed nor disagreed with the detailed arguments going on as I am not sufficiently informed to make a judgment (indeed, I felt that in fact the wording of the article was US-centric, which was not a point of controversy).


 * I did not realise at the time that this controversy was a re-run of previous ones and regret that I did not check this. However, it seemed a genuine enough, and significant enough, disagreement that the matter should be dealt with "behind the scenes" on the talk page where consensus could be reached. Tbh, though, just because something has existed for three years or so is not in itself proof that it is/was acceptable. I thought that any information which aroused that much feeling ought not to be in the main article until contributors had discussed its impact. This they have subsequently done, If I got that wrong, then I got it wrong and apologise for that. I will check three years of history beforehand next time.


 * I'm not happy with the term "activism" which is used above and would appreciate clarification from the ip user. Sitush (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've changed the word 'activism' to actions instead. I noticed recently from your talk page that WikiManOne likes to notify you of discussions he needs teamwork on, so I can see that you may not have been aware of the page's history. Removing an extensive section on controversies with a newly written 1-paragraph section favorable in tone to the organization, by someone (WikiManOne) whose profile admits he's a financial donor to Planned Parenthood, at a time when the matter is undergoing major public notoriety and scandal though makes this a very controversial decision. It seems you and others may have been unaware just how established the section WikiManOne is trying to remove, is. Given the public events, I don't see why - since there's strong disagreement on consensus - the established section was not continued to exist in its current form until a better alternative could be agreed upon, rather than removing all mention of controversy from the page so the public can't see it when it's newsworthy. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * At this point, I'm concerned with WikiManOne on multiple points, the edit warring, the potential canvassing, as well as conflict of interest. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I thank you for changing the word. I have no idea if it was appropriate for WikiManOne's actions or not, but it did not reflect mine. I also do not know if WM1 is canvassing other people. I do know that s/he is aware that I do not always agree with their viewpoint, and so I think the idea that I am being canvassed by WM1 is a bit far-fetched. Are some people are too close to these events to be able to view things objectively, which is what I've tried to do? Sitush (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * WikiManOne is on a crusade to mold the related pages to his liking. How he's getting away with it is anybody's guess at this point. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there's no need to guess about this. Wikipedia is mostly American, and the wedge issue that WikiManOne is harping on is the one thing in American politics that practically every American regresses to tribalist impulses over. No doubt most Americans (I am one, for clarity) have looked at some of the problems with Macedonia or Ireland and been perfectly bewildered, not only at how modern civilized people can behave so abominably, but how they can have such a big hole in their introspective abilities that they aren't even able to see that they are behaving abominably. Well, for American culture, this is the WP:PLAGUE trigger, and so we are seeing abominable behavior, and we can't expect the participants to be able to see that they're behaving abominably. It needs to be treated the same way as we treat editors who say that they are the arbiters of what those other pieces of devil's filth may call themselves, when those others call themselves Irishmen, Macedonians, et cetera. It should not be treated differently, or it will follow the same pattern. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a good summary. By way of background, the Planned Parenthood article has been surprisingly stable over the years, but has gone to hell in a handbasket over the psat 48 hours or so. The IP editor in this thread is a major, though not the only, contributor to the rapid deterioration. Another recent gem, from : "Fox and WorldNewsDaily need to be made aware of this situation, as it could further encourage defunding of PP." (Immediately followed by a demand that another editor withdraw because of "bias"). It's kind of a clusterfuck, and I agree with Gavia that it should be stomped on, so the page can return to the relative calm and stability it's enjoyed in the past. MastCell Talk 04:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why am I at fault, according to you? I have sought to oppose the change of a 3 year section in 48 hours. The reason the page is not returning to 'calm and stability' is that WikiManOne has inserted a whole new section, that removes all mentions of controversy, completely contrary to the one which existed for years, and has used admins to keep it in place. The comments after JGabbard's were:
 * "This made me laugh... I know passions are running high, but to even think that Fox News reporting on some editors disagreeing over one section in an article that few people read.... would lead to defunding Planned Parenthood. We're not that important, with all due respect.Mattnad (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol, true. And the point of this discussion isn't to bash Planned Parenthood or include criticism of it, per se, on the page. I've tried to keep my personal views out of this discussion as much as possible. What I feel about the organization is irrelevant for Wikipedia purposes at least. The main thing is the Controversy/Criticism section fairly and objectively present the major controversies and criticisms that have arisen in proportion to their prominence in the news. That's all. I just want the WP:DUE guidelines followed. This newest controversy, like others before it, have been major issues in the news, and ought to be mentioned. I am fine with seeing Planned Parenthood's defenses mentioned as well - but this ought to be mentioned so people are aware of it. The events of the past few days have been to the effect of covering up information on these controversies that's been on the page for 3+ years. To remove it should have a very good explanation, not edit warring to keep it in place with admin page blocking as enforcement. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.248.164 (talk)
 * As with the thread above, what is it that someone would like an admin to do here? Sure, blanking rather than fixing the controversy section in Planned Parenthood was less than a stellar idea.  (A better idea might be to simply turn it into a history and give the good with the bad as they happen in chronological order, as to not give undue weight.)  But there's nothing there that an admin needs to do to fix.  As for WikiManOne, he certainly hasn't done anything blockable.  So I don't see what admin action is required here. --B (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, I sort of wish we took a harder line with obvious, single-purpose agenda-driven editing, especially when it disrupts editing and leads previously stable articles to deteriorate. That could take the form of handing out short-term topic bans to encourage single-issue editors to branch out. In an ideal Wikipedia, we'd take single-purpose agenda-driven editing at least as seriously as we take vandalism, including issuing blocks - because this sort of thing is at least as damaging to the encyclopedia as vandalism. But that's just me. MastCell Talk 04:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again you're operating from the naive perspective that anyone cares about "damaging to the encyclopedia" as opposed to maintaining a vibrant and exciting social club. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we please stop with the frivolous reports? I will be happy to defend any of my actions if an neutral admin would like to look into them, I will no longer be responding directly to accusations made by this user as he operates on the presumption that I am editing in bad faith, which is incorrect. If the issue re "single-issue editing" was directed at me (which I don't think it was), I suggest someone take a look at my previous contributions, only a small portion of these have been made on related topics, I have only been active in this particular area recently... apparently people don't appreciate my bringing notions of NPOV and other viewpoints to these articles. WikiManOne 05:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't remove a long-standing section for the purpose of discussing it offline. Period. We don't remove well established, well documented opposing points of view in hopes of achieving "neutrality." Period.  User:WikiManOne's approach to editing has been disruptive. If he continues to use this approach, he should be banned from editing.  Period.  And that's the opinion of a neutral, un-involved admin about this matter. Rklawton (talk) 14:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What policy exactly would I be banned under? Also, I note that the IP address filing this report claims on his talk page to be a banned user, who before his ban had a topic ban on abortion articles. So it appears that I am not the one deliberately flouting policy here... WikiManOne 16:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You are editing disruptively in violation of WP:NOT, specifically WP:BATTLEGROUND - "Wikipedia is not a place to ... carry on ideological battles." How many venues and ANI threads have you popped up at in the last 48 hours because of this crusade?  I'm a pro-choice liberal myself, and IMO you make us all look bad.  You clearly need a break from this topic.Griswaldo (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've been the subject of two noticeboard accusations, both of them from the same IP address who was previously topic banned from Abortion related articles, which I note, this ban has not been lifted. I am planning to take a break from this topic, I will try to be available to help with the Planned Parenthood article and other articles I have been involved in but I'm not even going to try to combat the anti-choice POV in the other articles on the topic. It's true, I do have a pro-choice bias, but I'm just trying to make the article noted have a NPOV which apparently is very hard in this area of the encyclopedia. I'm not interested in this constant reporting that happens in these areas and will be moving away from such polarizing topics. Does that satisfy your concerns? WikiManOne 17:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not just topic banned, but indefinitely banned from WP. Interesting.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 18:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - The IP address that started this posted this pertinent message on the article talk page:
 * "Well, from my end, all I saw was a lot of comment moving and repeated instances of my comments being collapsed, including several that I saw no explanation for. To me it looked like a behind-the-scenes way of trying to aggravate me while talking nice, and to prevent me from participating in a discussion on a rewrite, by moving my replies to MastCell and others so they would never see I'd replied. I did jump to conclusions, and will apologize for the report filing in this case. It just looked really bad at the time, given the events preceding that. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)"
 * Also, the IP has been banned at my request for violating his indefinite block on the main account. WikiManOne 20:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Stalking by User:Roscelese
continues to stalk several editors to the point of harassment. Among others;


 * After an content dispute with User:Mamalujo on Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience in early August, Roscelese has followed Mamalujo to several articles leading to protracted disputes
 * After receiving a warning on her talk page from User:Lionelt on Nov. 17th, Roscelese followed Lionelt to Christine Bakke, a page she had never edited before and reintroduced content that Lionelt had removed
 * After receiving a warning on her talk page from me on Dec. 8th, Roscelese followed me all over creation including to AfDs
 * After a content dispute with User:Cloonmore on Crisis Pregnancy Centers, Roscelese followed Cloonmore to Milan Vuitch, a page she had never edited before to cast doubt on the content Cloonmore had added
 * After receiving a warning on her talk page from User:Brewcrewer on Dec. 26th, Roscelese followed Brewcrewer to Civilian casualty ratio, a page she had never edited before and reverted his edit
 * After a content dispute with User:Geremia on Excommunication of Margaret McBride, Roscelese followed Geremia to Religion and abortion, a page she had never edited before and reverted Geremia's contribution
 * After a dispute with User:SlimVirgin, Roscelese very likely followed her to The Reader, a page she had never editedd before, editwarring until blocked
 * After a content dispute with User:Kleinzach regarding Rescue opera starting Jan. 28th, Roscelese followed Kleinzach to Burlesque (disambiguation) and Talk:Burlesque where she opposed him in a merger proposal
 * After recieving a warning on her talk page from User:Lionelt earlier this very morning, Roscelese followed him to Bisexual Resource Center, GenderPAC and En femme, all pages she had never edited before, where she reverted his edits , ,

I'm sure there are other inicdents, these were just the most obvious. Not only has Roscelese been around long enough to know better, she was specifically warned about stalking here. - Haymaker (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Wow, there is just no end to the frivolous reports the anti-choice editors among us will file. ridiculous.. WikiManOne 16:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments like that are the reason that you are probably going to end up topic-banned. - Haymaker (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. While I can defend each and every one of these*, and will do so individually if asked, I'm most concerned about the second and last ones. WP:STALK notes that the defining characteristic of stalking-type harassment is inhibition of another editor's work and enjoyment for no legitimate reason. But (I hope) no one gains their enjoyment here from successfully deleting and removing content from LGBT-related articles. You and Lionelt should be pleased that I am referencing things that y'all have marked unreferenced, and restoring (with sources) content that was removed for lack of sources. That is why people mark things unreferenced. Not so they can reduce coverage of LGBT topics in this encyclopedia. Yes, I do occasionally look at other contributors' edit history, but I hope no one here will argue that rescuing LGBT-related articles from deletion so that I can expand and reference them is an abuse of editing privileges.
 * * having things watchlisted? productive interactions with other editors in which we mutually suggest discussions the other want to be involved in? using the recent changes tool? the fact that it's obvious from a look at my edit history that I was already editing articles in the area? fancy that.
 * Your lack of any evidence for some of these supposed incidents is also worrying. This is the second time this week you're trying to get me blocked, and I don't want to believe that it's because I'm keeping you on your toes about providing reliable sources, but your accusations get more and more spurious.
 * (Admins should also note that the "warning" of stalking to which Haymaker links was an unsubstantiated accusation left by a user who has a habit of accusing people of policy violations in an attempt to get them to stop editing on his favorite controversial topics. I can see the similarity to this case, but it's not a flattering one.) Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * After receiving a warning from Lionelt you 3 for 3 reverted tags he added to pages that you never edited before inside half an hour. You did not rescue them, you added no material or references, I find it impossible to believe that you merely stumbled across these pages.  I think explanations for the other stalking activity is warranted given the circumstances. - Haymaker (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There are a number of untrue statements in this comment, including but not limited to "3 for 3" (he tagged more pages for deletion, and I didn't do anything because hey, they weren't notable) and "added no material or references" (why would you even bother pretending that this is true, when anyone can just check page histories?) Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * All 3 of those reversions were reversions, no material or references were added. - Haymaker (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I think I can see why you're confused. See, deletion is so often a time-sensitive thing, particularly speedy, that I usually find it's best to remove the tag quickly and follow up by adding references, rather than going on a hunt for references and coming back to find that the page is already gone. Does that clear things up?
 * By the way, you might want to read WP:PETARD. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If there weren't a prolific patter of abuse I'd give you the benefit of the doubt, but things being what they are I'm reluctant to believe that you reverted these edits (on pages that you stumbled across) because you looked up references proving their notability but have neglected to add them because you just havn't had the time. - Haymaker (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to disappoint you (well, no, I'm not, that's a figure of speech, no one should be disappointed that references are being improved) but I have already done so. As a humorous side note, is this "prolific patter of abuse" a particularly rapid, unintelligible one? Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Semi-automated controversial edits with alternate account
I am requesting that User:Plastikspork's alternate account User:Plasticspork be blocked from editing. Although it is a known alternate account, Plastikspork is using it to make 1000s of semi-automated edits before and after he/she learned that the edits were controversial. This use is clearly against the policy of using legitimate alternate accounts.

On January 312, 2011 I posted a question about whether his bot had been approved for 27,000 edits he appeared to be planning to undertake. I noticed that his bot was not making the edits and crossed out my question. He/she and User:Bob the Wikipedian began a discussion in the thread I started about Plastikspork using semi-automated edits to make the 5000 or so edits carried out thus far. Plastikspork continued making the controversial edits with his alternate account from the time I asked about, without notifying me that he was doing so.

He/she used the account to evade my scrutiny of his/her edits. Therefore, this is not a legitimate use of an alternate account and the alternate account should be blocked. He/she could have simply posted a link to the alternate account to show that is where the editing was being done, but instead, acted in a deceptive manner about the account, not coming clean that that was how he/she was editing. And he/she is continuing the edits in spite of the controversy about them. --Kleopatra (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose as a bearer of evidence, be it for or against, I should bring that to the floor. More information regarding this situation may be found at Template talk:Taxobox. Please have a look at it before making any judgment here, as it explains the nature of this case. <span style="font-family:linux libertine o, times; font-variant:small-caps">Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 16:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Yes, this is another point about these edits. They appear to require an RfBA, and, under bot guidelines, the bot task would probably not be approved. 27,000 edits which do not improve or change an article do nothing. --Kleopatra (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And also Bot requests/Archive 40. Thanks for reviewing these related discussions. <span style="font-family:linux libertine o, times; font-variant:small-caps">Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 16:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (Not a specific reply) In light of Kleopatra's question atWP:BOTN about whether a RfBA would be be needed for such a task, I would like to clarify that per bot policy, number of edits per se does not require one to file for a RfBA. The qualifying criterion for a RfBA is rate of edits, as a measure of whether care and attention is being paid to every edit. I haven't looked at the specific case here but I thought I'd point out that 5,000 edits alone does not require a RfBA; 5000 edits in 24 hours does. Of course, that does not mean that PS is in the right here, only that he is not necessarily in the wrong on this particular issue. Regards, - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 20:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense at all. A slow-moving bot pays no more care and attention to its edits than a fast-moving one.  Approval should be required regardless of the bot's edit speed.  71.141.88.54 (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is about where, in a mass-edit, the line is drawn between RfBA and regular editor AWB. The OP notes that PS did not reveal that their "AWB-account" did the job. To be clear: User:Plasticspork has two extra accounts: User:Plasticbot (a bot) and User:Plastikspork. Both extra accounts have AWB permission. Probably there is an accepted reason PS does not reveal the Plasticspork ("AWB") account. If so, then PS should prevent confusion some other way -- but preventing should be done. If there is no reason, e.g. because the account is allowed for "maintenance", then the second [third] account should be clearly linked to the main account. Either way, PS is failing. One of the effects of this hiding is that at least one user got lost is researching what was going on, where to state controversiality at all, and in the process loosing trust in admins ability for self-regulation ,and worse . -DePiep (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My alternate accounts are both disclosed on my userpage, they are "SporkBot" and "Plasticspork". As far as I can tell, "Plasticbot" is run by a different user. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  01:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I found them. -DePiep (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Paraphrasing from a post on my talk page. This seems to be a big misunderstanding. First, the reason why I didn't disclose anything to Kleopatra is that Kleopatra "retired" hours after posting to my talk page.  So, I assumed Kleopatra was no longer watching my page, or editing on WP.  Second, the reason why the edit history is split to an alternate account is to limit the possible damage done by that account, and to isolate the semi-automated/AWB edits from my normal editing.  The existence of this alternate account is disclosed on my user page.  Third, as soon as I became aware that the task was controversial, I stopped.  I was under the impression that this was more than a cosmetic change, and that there was some consensus for this change.  This is the first time I have had any objections to my cleanup work.  Sorry for the misunderstanding, and I do plan to file a formal request for bot approval if there is consensus from the RFC.  FYI, the edit rate was roughly four edits a minute, which was somewhat tedious, but not so bad since it just amounted to checking the diffs, and pressing a button to commit.  Let me know if I can answer any other questions.  Thanks! Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  01:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So you embarked upon 100 hrs of AWB edit checking? And the thought of using a bot did not pop up? First of all, it was a botrequest. Curious. -DePiep (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't think I was going to be the only one, which is why I said "help with this task" rather than "handle this request". Given the chance to respond again, I would certainly do things differently. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  01:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you did not create an auto-save gadget for AWB? Well, Kleopatra added this here below. Considering your actions, the timeline, and the behaviour, I see this: at every moment of choice you passed, you choose the evasive option. And that is what your comments on this say too. I won't criticize these individual moments here. But the general line is there: any editor is supposed to deserve good faith, when working in good faith. On top of this, an experienced user, an admin & bot owner at that, should know this by heart & intuition (is why I don't link to policies &tc, right?). That is missing here, PS.
 * (Disclosure: I am here because I was surprised that PS wrote ... in a "semi-automatic" [quotes - sic] mode using my AWB account'  -- wow, I didn't know such an account existed --, and an editor complaining about non-responsiveness by admins).
 * Proposal (Well, maybe the outcome could be a block, but more or less PS has admitted it should not have gone this way). Plastikspork, I suggest this solution: could you come clear about your actions (making it more easy easy to AGF), and step forward to Kleopatra to invite them back from retirement. Kleo is not that far away, we know. -DePiep (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I posted my initial concerns about the edits at 7:54 am, 31 January 2011, last Monday (2 days ago) (UTC−7). You had already started editing with your alternate account at this time. You made at least 1000 additional edits with your alternate account after I posted my concerns, and did not disclose your alternate account on the bot request board.
 * I posted an additional concern about the task at 10:16 pm, 31 January 2011, last Monday (2 days ago) (UTC−7). You were editing with your alternate account at these times.
 * I posted another concern about the edits at 10:19 pm, 31 January 2011, last Monday; your last edit by the alternate account was at 17:07, 1 February 2011.
 * I made 2 posts at the bot request board indicating my concern and two posts on your talk page indicating my concerns and that I was attempting to scrutinize any edits your bot was making. Instead of notifying me that your alternate account was making the edits instead of your bot, you continued to edit and made more than a thousand edits with your alternate account knowing that I considered the edits controversial. --Kleopatra (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Plastikspork, can you declare that you did not use any extra automation when doing the AWB edits? -DePiep (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just plain perlWikipedia. I provide a list of pages, and a regular expression.  It shows me the diffs, and I approve/skip each one, then it commits the edits.  The rate that I use is slower than AWB.  As far as I can tell, it's not any different than AWB.  The last time I used AWB, there was an "autosave" feature which allows you to not even inspect the edits.  However, this may have changed.  Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  00:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Plastikspork: twenty-six-kay this way? I do not believe this. I'd say: bot it. -DePiep (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My POV and some facts: 1)In normal AWB non-bots editors are excluded from auto-save. I find no evidence that the program was modifying someway to auto-save. 2) A bot request doesn't exclude that an editor will perform the task. I don't think Plastispork was expecting to do all the 27k edits manually. 3) Sometimes editors who are willing to help with tasks act faster than they should. It happened to me more than once. No actual harm was done. There is not even a reason to revert. The only thing tha may have happened is that some watchlists were triggered for good. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that people sometimes jump the gun, not a big deal, and I agree reverting is not necessary, whether or not it's decided to go ahead with the rest of the edits.
 * But I'm having a hard time with the "plug-in error" and other excuses, such as that the need for disclosure disappeared with my retirement.
 * I think people editing with alternate accounts, particularly if they're doing any editing simultaneously with the alternate account and their main account, have a high duty to be careful in making clear what they are doing and monitoring in case any controversy arises. I consider this a serious failure in Plastikspork's actions, and I'm not sure that he does. --Kleopatra (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Is sock puppetry forbidden or not
This,

"'While there are some valid reasons for maintaining multiple accounts on the project, the use of multiple accounts to deceive other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards – sock puppetry – is forbidden.'"

is what it says at Sock puppetry.


 * 1) User:Plastikspork made edits after I posted my disagreement: against ommunity consensus.
 * 2) He did not disclose that his alternate account was making the edits after I expressed my disagreement and after I questioned whether his bot was making the edits:deception.

His alternate account should be blocked for sock puppetry. --Kleopatra (talk) 07:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Economist letter to the editor (currently being discussed on Jimbo's talk page: "I have been a contributor since the summer of 2009, mostly to articles on race issues, and during this time I’ve seen several members quit the project. Every person I know of who has left provided the same reason, which is that Wikipedia’s rules are enforced selectively, especially the rule that members treat each other in a civil manner. ... The surest way for administrators and ArbCom to retain their positions is to appeal to popular sentiment among the ordinary members. By doing so they drive away members who might have voted against them. ... This self-sustaining cycle of bias, the decline in participation and Mr Wales’s gradual delegation of authority to the community and to ArbCom have all occurred since 2007."

The article in the Economist includes this information: "The number of regular contributors to Wikipedia’s English-language encyclopedia dropped from around 54,000 at its peak in March 2007 to some 35,000 in September 2010 ... Perhaps, but some evidence suggests that neophytes are being put off by Wikipedia’s clique of elite editors."

The New York Times article on female contributors: "bout a year ago, the Wikimedia Foundation, the organization that runs Wikipedia, collaborated on a study of Wikipedia’s contributor base and discovered that it was barely 13 percent women; the average age of a contributor was in the mid-20s, according to the study by a joint center of the United Nations University and Maastricht University."

So, I ask, are there special rules that only apply to administrators, namely, you don't have to follow rules? Or are we creating an encylopedia here that may require the knowledge of someone besides 20-something men? --Kleopatra (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If it was sockpuppetry, he would have signed using the other account. He clearly stated using his primary ID that he was volunteering. Following your advisory not to move forward, I countered that explaining the rationale very soon afterward. I wouldn't blame him if he assumed that my rationale cleared up your concerns. When you posted a second time, wondering where the bot request was, I explained the situation to the best of my knowledge. No, I hadn't been made aware at that point that Plasticspork was a maintenance account being used in the approved manner listed at WP:Multiple Accounts under the bullet labeled "maintenance"-- up until he said so, I'd assumed he was doing it with a bot and wondered myself why the request had gotten action so quickly, but since bots aren't my thing, I assumed the folks at WP:Bot requests would notice anything suspicious if it were indeed suspicious. Of course, as the situation developed, it became clear to me that the discussion wasn't being monitored, or a bot owner would probably have contacted him asking him to hold on before I did so. This much does disturb me, that other bot owners weren't monitoring the activity there, which should have been clear from some of the edit summaries.
 * Once it was revealed that this was not being done with a bot, the lack of procedure taken prior to the edits made a great deal more sense. <span style="font-family:linux libertine o, times; font-variant:small-caps">Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 16:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Plastikspork withheld information that he was making the edits with his alternate account. The edits are controversial. He knew that from my post on the bot request board, but he continued to make at least a 1000 more edits after learning they were controversial. He hid that he was editing with his alternate account apparently to avoid scrutiny of the edits when an editor who had expressed concerns about the edits on the bot request board then mentioned she was scrutinizing the edits on Plastikspork's talk page. He should have stopped with the first controversial post. He should have revealed with the first question. He has a lot of excuses for not revealing, but none of them hold water with the fact that the controversial nature of the edits was raised long before I asked whether his bot was making them.
 * There's no rule that you can make controversial maintenance edits; there's no rule that you can hide scrutiny of maintenance edits.
 * And, making a controversial edit to a template is not a maintenance task. See WP:Maintenance. --Kleopatra (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay. I just got back after an unfortunate, unexpected trip. From my talk page ... I agree that the burst of 5000 edits was a mistake, and I certainly apologize for that, if I haven't already. I honestly didn't see the message from Kleopatra until right around 00:07 UTC on February 2, which when I stopped. I would have responded to her directly, but when I went to her talk page, I saw that she had retired. The only reason that I can come up with for why I didn't see the message earlier is some javascript bug in my browser, or a conflict with one of the plugins (e.g., noscript or greasemonkey). I did not intend to deceive anyone, and thought that the change had already achieved consensus, and was not controversial. The reason for using an alternate account is to make it easier to isolate my semi-automated edits, and for security, I am not aware how most of the scripting languages store my password. For example, perlWikipedia, which is what I usually use, doesn't use the secure server, and probably stores the password in memory in plain text. Once again, sorry for the misunderstandings, and I can assure you that it won't happen again. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 00:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is my edit summary posted at the bot request discussion, "Taxobox maintenance, one-time: whoa! 26,000 bot cosmetic changes to prep for a future not-yet-approved automation? no!" I think it was grossly irresponsible of you to continue with 26,000 edits without monitoring the discussion related to the bot edit request. You were logged in and making edits from both your primary account and your alternate account for some point of time and could readily have monitored this discussion. I think that, as an administrator, a bot owner, and the owner of an alternate account making thousands of edits, you have a greater duty to pay attention to what you are editing and monitor for controversies. The type of monitoring that should be done to prevent having to discuss situations after the fact for days. You really think it is okay for an admin/bot owner/alternative account owner to ignore concerns long enough to make another 1000 edits? What would you consider appropriate actions for a user who offered up your excuse, that you weren't paying attention, essentially? Is that appropriate for the owner of an alternate account who is making 5000 edits? Not paying attention to the lack of consensus? --Kleopatra (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * PS If you have a glitch in your semi-automated alternate account that blocks messages, then maybe you should block the account yourself, regardless of my request for a block here. --Kleopatra (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I did disclose that I was using an alternate account on my talk page. I would have told Kleopatra sooner had I not been under the impression that she had retired.  The use of alternate non-admin accounts by admins is actually quite common (see links to Template:User alternative account name and others, for example), and I disclose these alternate accounts on my user page.  Again, I apologize for the burst of edits, and I promise it won't happen again. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  00:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not until long after the fact of continuing to make edits and after your editing with the alternate account became more controversial than the edits. My question on the bot request board, and my edit summary to my post, were both strong indicators that controversy existed. You ignored them. Then you choose to put the blame on me for your continuing to edit when you had multiple indications of controversy? Again, would you buy this from another editor, the post on the bot request board ignored for another 1000 edits, then the excuse that since the editor had retired, possibly due to your actions, there was no need for full disclosure? Is that an acceptable course for an administrator/bot owner/alternate account owner? This claim that you didn't know and that you didn't bother with disclosure and didn't quit when it was clear in two places the edits were controversial?--Kleopatra (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Bob the Wikipedian
New subthread, splicing for User:Bob the Wikipedian. Another disturbing line of behaviour in this is by BtW (of admin priesthood). Here above they wrote being bearer of evidence to create "perspective" -- BtW you were in the middle of the happening when it happened, not an outsider witness. Elsewhere (not here) you claimed some sort of responsibility off PS's shoulders, away from manual AWB-saving?. In that same post, you introduced an after the fact RfC to create "some level of community approval", while BtW started the bot request we are talking about (where Kleo responded along the line: "well, I'll see that RfBA when it happens"). I state that ''BtW (an admin) should have the intuition and AGF state of mind to prevent this derailing. BtW should have actively prevented this, they knew it was controversial''. There were multiple moments BtW could have acted. On top of this, BtW is rudely dismissive to an editor when pointed to this behaviour ("I half-expected the scandal would reach this far", and "... your feelings toward administrators ..." --no, it is about admin's behaviour, BtW). The edit summary in this final link was "adios" -- which proves bad faith. I state that BtW knowingly evaded policy, and was uncivil to an AGF editor. I support the general question Kleo puts forward in this case: why are admins treated different towards policies? Any non-admin with such behavior (including PS, ping-pong is a tango sports) would have been reverted first, before talking. At least. -DePiep (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * DePiep, I highly encourage you to investigate the discussions at Template talk:Taxobox, Template talk:Automatic taxobox, and then decide who is acting rashly. I think it's safe to say by now that this is a personal attack from Kleopatra which she has extended toward Plastikspork. This personal attack seems to have begun months some time ago (when you are as busy as I am, days seem numbered several times over) - comment corrected at 00:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC) by <span style="font-family:linux libertine o, times; font-variant:small-caps">Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) during the development of automatic taxobox and is now being unleashed at a much wider degree than before. Having stated this, yes, I was aware that Kleopatra objected, but never once in the history of my knowing her has she ever supported anything I've done, even though those around me do.
 * On a side note, but probably an important side note, I've got a ton of homework at the moment and won't be able to say much without cutting into that until tomorrow evening (I'm on UTC-6). <span style="font-family:linux libertine o, times; font-variant:small-caps">Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 13:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. I was not trying to appear as an uninvolved party; in fact, I was trying not to create bias in the discussion but merely trying to be helpful in linking to the relevant discussions. Also, I'd like to know how "adios" is bad faith...I say adios in ending conversation all the time, and that was my response to her saying she was leaving. If I'm not mistaken, the word has its etymology somewhere along the lines of "God bless", so I'm quite confused as to how that's rude. <span style="font-family:linux libertine o, times; font-variant:small-caps">Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 13:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This thing began with the bot request by BtW (Jan 30, 23:56 UTC). Nowhere in the subsequent branching threads I have found a post by Kleo that would require outside correction. Also, BtW here also does not provide such an edit. Now BtW invokes previous discussions. But apart from cumulative warnings etc, fueds do not weigh in disputes. Even worse, surprisingly BtW introduces them as if they matter to (excuse for ) current behaviour. To me, if they are unresolved disputes, this is not the way to resolve them. No way they are a pass to go ahead undiscussed. And BtW admissed a dispute by the late introduction of RfC. Simply: if Kleo's contribution was that negative, why not go for RfBA from the start? Why could you not have get the outcome you'd propose?
 * I am with Kleo on this point: I do not expect superior behaviour from admins. I only expect that they apply the same rules for themselves, as they do for other editors. -DePiep (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "I state that BtW knowingly evaded policy, and was uncivil to an AGF editor." Accidentally, I've been watching this WP:DRAMA from aside, and I cannot possibly agree that Kleopatra was an AGF editor. On the contrary, she has exhibited everything but good faith. I don't know the whole history between herself and BtW, but all I saw from her side in last 3 days was just complaining that the policy is not followed and screaming administrator abuse in various forums. I would have a greater level of sympathy if the edits in question somehow had an adverse effect on her own work, but all I saw was just complaining for complaining's sake. May I remind everyone on WP:BURO and WP:IAR? And you aren't helping much, DePiep, with such inquisitory attitude. While I will agree that Plastikspork blew the procedure and didn't follow the bot policy to the letter, I don't see any particular harm having been done so far, except for the feelings of all involved.
 * My suggestion is as follows: slap two WP:TROUTs to Plastikspork, one for BtW and Kleopatra each, then let the RfC about the edits finish; depending on the outcome, complete the job or revert Plasticspork's edits. As far as I can tell, there was no rush to perform these edits, which would justify the speed in which they were executed. Also, there was no harm being done to the encyclopedia. No such user (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I do see the harm in what I've been complaining about all along. Wikipedia is not many things, but it's also not a place where admins have an exclusive right to edit fully protected templates:editing of fully protected pages requires community consensus for substantive edits. Bob has now told me that I, too, could edit the template as much as I want if I increased my access rights by gaining adminship like he did.
 * This is not what full protection is for: granting edit rights to admins that non-admins don't have. And it's not the reason for fully protecting this template: to limit editing to admins. The point is to limit editing of the template due to the number of articles it is on and the potential damage that bad edits could cause. Editing articles is the primary purpose of editing wikipedia. There are many excellent editors who aren't admins. These editors may have excellent template-editing skills and insights into good/bad edits to fully protected templates. They should be consulted by gaining consensus as the policy requires.
 * Alternative accounts have rules. An experienced admin who is also a bot operator should know these rules. One of the policies is that you should not use the alternative account to avoid scrutiny. And, PS not only did avoid scrutiny, he made over a 1000 edits for hours after I first made a comment about the edits, indicating there was controversy. In addition, knowing that I was scrutinizing the edits, in addition to moving forward making them in spite of the controversy, he continued to make them with his alternate account without stating that that was what he was doing. He had plenty of opportunities to disclose his alternate account edits or stop editing. He was signed in on both this alternate and main account while editing, so he had plenty of access to his watch list to see my posts. He responded to Bob about the editing after I had posted my concerns. What good faith should I assume when an editor uses an alternate account to avoid scrutiny of controversial semi-automated edits rather than his bot or main account, both of which I am obviously scrutinizing? --Kleopatra (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Re No such user. Tellingly, you provided no diffs to illustrate the "shouting" or "everything but good faith" and such. My reading (of the same) is that Kleo kept posting seriously and to the point; any frustration showing is no reason for any editor to become dismissive or rude. And of course, one does not need to be hindered 'in one's own work' to complain. The sequence is clear: in the Botrequest Kleo noted an objection, which was circumvented at first and later acknowledged by BtW/PS. If there were other arguments, they could have been put forward. What I would propose is that BtW (this subsection) acknowledges their mistakes. Trouts just get smelly. Without some change it would just become a fish slapping dance. -DePiep (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would provide a surprisingly vast array of the edits NSU's referring to, but apparently involved parties are not allowed to bring forth evidence, so I won't unless someone requests it from me. At this time I have no apology to make other than for anything rude I may have said to you, Kleopatra. And until someone can prove to me I've wronged anyone beyond that, that's where I stand on that. I believe Kleopatra also owes Smith609 an apology as well for her most recent remarks about him. <span style="font-family:linux libertine o, times; font-variant:small-caps">Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 00:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For his disparaging Americans? No. I like Americans. A lot. There's no place for insulting people for their nationality. --Kleopatra (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * <span style="font-family:linux libertine o, times; font-variant:small-caps">Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 05:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * DePiep, your selection of words like tellingly suggest prejudice. But since you insist...
 * Here on Template talk:Taxobox Kleopatra starts  and continues  further  suggesting that the high-risk template was protected by administrators so that in effect they could ban ordinary users from editing, and requesting that all edits, no matter how small, must receive consensus in advance. Fair enough, she's entitled to that opinion, but that was not the opinion of other commenters (Kim van der Linde, Rkitko), who basically said that it is an exercise in bureaucracy, and that admin edits to fix bugs (without seeking consensus) are OK. I invite all interested to read the thread at Template talk:Taxobox. The representative comment by Kleopatra is "So, it's a null edit, so it doesn't impact anything, so it improves things, so it's still a fully protected template. Can I start making test edits to it? No. Please gain consensus for all edits before testing."
 * Angry, she puts a retired on her user pages on Feb 1. On Feb 2, Plastikspork explains to Bob on his talk page  that he is using "his AWB account" to make the edits to the articles (not the protected template). Both his alt accounts have been declared on his user page for a long time (Dec 2010). True, he did not answer to Kleopatra which account he used, and he explained later that it was because whe was retired, so the answer would have been moot. Do you believe him? I don't know, but WP:AGF says you should. She apparently doesn't
 * Suddenly, Kleopatra un-retires, accusing Plastikspork of violating the bot policy, avoiding scrutiny and requesting him to be blocked. The argument continues on Bob's talk page (from  onwards), Plastikspork's talk page etc.
 * She is apparently, and to an extent justifiedly, frustrated that she couldn't edit the protected template, and that administrators did, even without seeking consensus. On one hand, she has a point that, strictly speaking, this is against the policy. On the other hand, she was pretty alone in her insistence that the policy is to be followed to the letter; the counter-arguments are that we have long-standing practice that we do not follow rules just for rules' sake and as long as you're improving encyclopedia and not harming anyone, you're OK. So yes, Bob and Plastik maybe were overly rash to "fix" things around, even if that meant bending some rules. But I think that her anger blew it out of any reasonable proportions, and clouded her judgment. Your opinion who is at fault may vary; in my opinion, everyone is to a certain extent. But I'd like this WP:DRAMA to die out (and, DePiep, I don't think you're helping; heck, I doubt I'm helping, either), because no harm has been done to encyclopedia, and nobody really wanted to harm anybody else. The damage to feelings has been done, though. No such user (talk) 07:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't twist my intentions to suit your accusations. The null edit is about one specific aspect. Bob didn't make just a null edit. He made a dozen edits in a short period of time, including a null edit, multiple partial edits, and edits where he forgot symbols to a template which appears on ten of 1000s of articles, if not 100,000 articles. The reason this template is fully protected is to partially to prevent editing just like this. If you have to edit a template that appears on 100,000 articles, then you should know what you are doing, rather than make multiple edits that could be the equivalent of a million edits. If he had posted his intentions clearly on the template talk page, after reaching consensus for the edits, other editors and administrators could have commented and made sure he had it right before editing. Instead he admits he didn't gain consensus for at least one edit, another he gained consensus on a user talk page, etc.
 * Harm is done to the encyclopedia when administrators and editors create an atmosphere whereby editing is hindered by an inability for users who don't live and breath wikipedia to understand how to edit here. See Jimbo's talk page for these discussions all of the time: how to gain more experts, how to gain more female editors, how to retain them and experts, how to retain editors in general.
 * Should I follow policy? No. If I shouldn't follow policies and gain community consensus, what will happen to me if I don't? Well, if I don't, I'll get blocked by an administrator. Do administrators have to follow policy? It appears not.
 * Plastikspork made 1000 edits after he saw me post in the original consensus discussion that I objected to the edits. The edits are controversial. He continued editing after I posted on his talk page questions about whether he was making the edit. The edits were being scrutinized. How much bad faith will you assume of me, a lowly expert technical editor, and how much good faith of any administrator? How can I possibly edit here and follow the policies and guidelines when their enforcement is arbitrary or biased in favor of administrators? I'm not an administrator but you and Bob are smearing me for my failure to follow rules; yet you don't hold Plastikspork to any such standard and declare your assumption of good faith for his behavior no matter how the edit history shows he knew there were objections in the original request and later on his talk page and that I was scrutinizing his edits and didn't know about his alternate account. It's called sock puppetry.
 * And, I have retired from editing. I edit articles. That's what wikipedia is: a collection of articles. And that's it's purpose. If you consider my engaging in these discussions to try to protect the rights of others to be able to understand policies and actively edit, you may be right. In the long run, if administrators learn to follow policies and edit according to policies and understand how frustrating it is for lowly ranked editors like me (as Bob calls me) to see that one set of rules applies to administrators (do what you want if the outcome is good without considering the community) and their example should never be followed because another complete set of rules applies to low ranked editors (follow policy), then wikipedia will be able to retain editors, get more female editors (yeah, I have a good idea how many male administrators are going after me here and will soon jump on), retain female editors, get and retain expert editors, get and retain editors at all. --Kleopatra (talk) 15:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow..way to paint every administrator with the same brush, and every male administrator at that. And you wonder why you are having a hard time convincing anyone of your position while you single handedly throw attacks and bad faith assumptions at hundreds of editors? -DJSasso (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't painted every administrator and every male administrator with the same brush. And I don't feel they need to be. The majority of administrators on wikipedia are simply editors who are willing to do a lot of tedious work. However, there is no way that my arguments are being listened to, and I keep having to repeat myself, and try to move this back on track as Bob and No such keep trying to move it away from the administrator and his/her socks back to me. See my quotes from the Economist and the New York Times above, though, before you decide it's your time also to start attacking me for trying to get the same rules enforced for administrators that are enforced for me. --Kleopatra (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So rather than bringing it back on track, you introduce sexism. I happen to have a great deal of respect for women (thanks to natural selection), and I'm insulted you would imply otherwise without anything to back it up. If I've ever even implied that women are not capable of being as good of Wikipedians as men are, I'd like to see the link to that statement. I was hoping that apologizing last night (see the last numbered link I posted above) for challenging you and carrying on with you over this would at least doctor some of this up, but it looks to have been tragically ineffective. I've put up an RfC already and agreed to follow a new policy where I document all my changes on the talk page of each template within the WikiProject. What will it take for you to stop hounding me about this otherwise noncontroversial series of edits? <span style="font-family:linux libertine o, times; font-variant:small-caps">Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 16:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Bob, this is about Plastikspork. You are the one hounding me. You apologized last night? Really? With meaning? You simply can't leave me alone. I call it what I see it, Bob. You have been jumping at me for every criticism I make of your ineffectual or bad editing of templates, saying it's personal, as if you want to have a relationship with me. You hijack every issue and start whining that it's a personal attack on you. You're not that interesting. Your apology is worth exactly what you intended it to be worth, and I accorded it as much as it deserved. --Kleopatra (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

re No Such User. First, thanks for all the diffs. For sure, Kleo wrote strong opinions, but non are "screaming" nor "everything but good faith". These qualifications NSU used are not substantiated, and I even read some acceptance for Kleo's points in NSU's reply here. It distracts anyone, while they are not relevant for what happened. Next I thing I want to get rid of is that off-topic "protected template" discussion that is introduced here. Simply: if it is solved, then it's done. If not solved, then solve it anywhere but in this thread. Not actions or behavior here can be justified by some feud from outside. About invoking "bending the rules", "no burocracy", and "not helping much", "no harm done to the encyclopedia" to conclude the debate -- well, that can kill every discussion, and the ANI and Policy pages could stay empty (the discussion shifts to: when should we invoke these uber-reasons &tc). At the same time, you are very sharp about Kleo saying "Retired" while keep editing -- why not bending that rule? And now for my substantial reaction. What is left is, unclouded, the original Botrequest and it's subsequent threads and actions. NSU, I am not the only one thinking that it might be better to find consensus first for a 26K article edit. Eventually, both BtW and PS stopped the process just to make sure that my claim for this being noncontroversial actually holds water (BtW). That is: RfC or RfBA. If Kleo were talking nonsense or worse -- the discussion would conclude such. If Kleo had reasonable arguments -- the discussion would conclude so. Whatever, the bulk edit would be based on that. The fact is: none of Kleo's edits in this justify the massedits being made secretly or without seeking consensus. -DePiep (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Bob the Wikipedian, your behaviour is despicable. From your Botrequest on you have written the worst posts that could pass the filter, and still you are here to claim some correctness or otherones faults. -DePiep (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Struck my own bad talk. Very bad talk. -DePiep (talk) 01:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed bad talk to history, out of sight. -DePiep (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have responded to some things above. I agree with DePiep that the massedits were a mistake on my part (not so sure about the despicable part), but I can assure you that I didn't intend to deceive anyone here.  If I really believed it would make everyone happy, I would block my alternate account myself.  Note that per the blocking policy, blocks are not punitive, but instead are to prevent further disruptive behaviour (see Blocking policy).  As I have stated above, I do not intend to do this again. Thanks! Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  00:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Plastikspork: the "despicable part" is about BtW, and only used in this BtW-subsection. So explicitly not about you. -DePiep (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can't see messages in relevant discussions while you are editing with your alternate account, maybe you should block it yourself, as I suggest above. If all this drama arises from you not seeing a message with clear content and an edit summary that says "whoa! no!," then maybe your editing from your alternate account is irresponsible until you get all the glitches out and can follow the discussions related to the thousands of edits you are making. --Kleopatra (talk) 01:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Plastikspork, this subsection is about BtW. I'd say: that's a different cake both by baking and by eating. -DePiep (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "still you are here to claim some correctness or otherones faults" -- If this is not my place to defend myself, and it's not here for Plastikspork to comment, what is it here for? When I am challenged I do try to defend my actions. And so far, I've still seen no evidence that what I did was out of line. The 27K-ish minor edits (which still have not been proven detrimental) were required in order for me to address the poor coding. This cleanup in code was requested by a user of the template, and it's been an issue for many years, but no one's ever taken the time to fix it. Had I not made a bot request, would it still have been a problem? Had this only been 100 edits, or 10, or even a single edit, would it have been a problem? <span style="font-family:linux libertine o, times; font-variant:small-caps">Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 03:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * BtW: I did not disallow you to defend yourself. This is another twist of logic you inject.
 * What I did state is that, in explaining/defending yourself, you lay the blame on others. From post one here, you have not put a straight line of reasoning. And always your conclusion is: no me. That is what I dislike. (And, for who does not get it: this subsection is named as it is for a reason. About PS: see elsewhere, quite nearby). -DePiep (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that remark; you had me rather confused there. I'll try in subsequent posts to this discussion not to redirect blame, and would appreciate it if all of us took the same advice here. You're right-- we can talk all day about what did (or didn't happen, which clearly none of us agree upon), but I think what's going to happen to prevent further conflict is more important at this point.
 * Last night it came to my attention that in ignoring many of Kleopatra's accusations, I mistakenly ignored her questions at Template talk:Taxobox-- which I'm gravely sorry for doing, as this misunderstanding was the very thing that fueled the fire. All her concerns that she has thus far expressed about the change have now been addressed per my comment there last night, and I'd appreciate any followup discussion. This being a highly visible template, I highly encourage any remarks to be unbiased by this conflict we've had the past few days, as those involved have all had their hands slapped et cetera already (which I think all of us needed). <span style="font-family:linux libertine o, times; font-variant:small-caps">Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 19:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We're here now because User:Plastikspork made thousands of semi-automated edits with an apparently broken alternative account. My request that it be blocked is even more relevant now, and I do request that he stop using the alternative account, and his bot, as he has shown that his semi-automation of it is not glitch free "The only reason that I can come up with for why I didn't see the message earlier is some javascript bug in my browser, or a conflict with one of the plugins (e.g., noscript or greasemonkey)." A notice should be added to the alternative account page and the bot page so that other editors are warned and other edits can be investigated as necessary. In the meantime, if there is a bug in Plastikspork's brower or a conflict that could impact his bot, he should also not be running that, either. --Kleopatra (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * re Kleo: No. :-) This subsection is about User:Bob the Wikipedian, full stop. Even BtW cannot make that difference. For PS use another section, please.
 * re BtW: nonsense. -DePiep (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)