Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive503

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


User:Roobit thread from WP:AIV[edit]

Resolved: IP blocked Black Kite 15:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
You're reply (unlike mine ;-)) contains violation of WP:NPA. Tell me where should I report you? --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
In fact, having re-read Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism, I could easily conclude that the IP's acts fall under two 'Vandalism types': 'sneaky vandalism' in article space and 'Userspace vandalism' on various user talk pages. And according to Wikipedia:Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism, “Obvious and malicious sockpuppets may be reported to AIV”, so that if anyone has problems with reading, it's probably not me. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
WP:ANI LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The above thread was at WP:AIV, but AIV does not seem like the best forum for it and as it was suggested already by LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs), I have moved the thread here. Cirt (talk) 13:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"you are too stupid to be able to read the notice on this page", whilst perhaps not being the most appropriate response, doesn't sound uncivil to myself. In Miacek's position I would have merely taken it as a slap on the wrist, but I guess that is just an interpretation. neuro(talk) 14:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
No, that comment was clear violation of NPA and I shouldn't have done it (Trouts or time off as considered appropriate) so I apologise for that. As for the basis of the complaint, I couldn't see a direct link between the two accounts except for an obvious bias - but one which may be shared by several inclined editors, so folk more familiar with socking or this particular case should review it. As for 3RR, this usually needs more than one editor and I was not prepared to wade through the history to find if one party was more guilty than another (plus, it is AIV!!!) Lastly, I was I admit ticked off with the response; in that period I had more edits to the AIV board than the bot, and I was less than amused with Miacek's first comments - still, as I said, my bad. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify - I never said it wasn't an NPA violation. It is. neuro(talk) 14:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Good grief. I blocked the IP for a while, as I agree with the analysis that it is a returning blocked user harassing people. Miacek, LHvU is right, next time please take it to WP:SSP which is there for that exact purpose. Happy New Year, everyone. Guy (Help!) 14:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I think at this point this thread can be marked as resolved - thoughts? Cirt (talk) 14:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, and done. Black Kite 15:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
So the problem with lack of civility on the part of LHVU is not to be addressed? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 01:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Not taking a side but asking...It looks like he apologized above and realized his mistake?? What more do you suggest or are you looking for? --Tom 01:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: unless the user starts promoting at a much faster pace.--Crossmr (talk)

BalLightning (talk · contribs)

Just checking this users contribs as I ran in to him again, he's made a total of 5 edits in over 2 years, 1 was vandalism, and 4 have been for promotion. The 4 promotion ones are all in the last month. His talk page shows a deleted contribution that from the looks of it was probably more promotion. It seems that he's not here to do anything besides promote (as slowly and infrequently as it is, but there isn't a good contrib in the bunch).--Crossmr (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I see no contributions at all. Anyone care to clarify? neuro(talk) 14:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/BalLightning does seem to list 5 contributions to my non-administrator eyes. I don't think any admin action is required here, the 4-level warning system should suffice as it's possible the editor does not understand the implications of their actions and it's no harm to assume good faith on the part of inexperienced editors. The Spore article has enough eyes on it to prevent any damage. Skomorokh 14:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Seems my ec was Crossmr fixing the username. I agree that no admin intervention appears to be required immediately - uw is probably the best course of action. neuro(talk) 16:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary abuse / suspect editing motives[edit]

Would it be possible for an administrator to have a quick look at the edits of User:Poncho32323 (a relatively small number). This apparent single-purpose agenda account holder has made a number of edits to articles related to a band called Stratovarius. All the edits have had gibberish edit summaries, despite pleas to stop, making it difficult for RC patrol monitoring. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the account for 3 hours to permit them to read the welcome message on their talkpage, and to respond to concerns expressed there. Next time, WP:AIV is best suited for a quick response (as long as you don't get the grumpy reviewer that sometimes answers there). LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Am I the grumpy reviewer? ;-) Tan | 39 16:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I didn't go to WP:AIV because I didn't consider it to be vandalism, or the matter to be particularly urgent. It was more "annoying" rather than "harmful" to the project. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to the curmudgeon who was the subject of this matter. ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I'm familiar. At any rate, you could have easily been referring to me - I do get grumpy :-) Tan | 39 17:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I am not aware that "being grumpy" is an impediment to being an administrator. It may even be a requirement. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
It is, actually; I never promote any RfA candidate that doesn't have the correct level of grumpiness. EVula // talk // // 17:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Kinda like you're not a true admin until you are told you are abusing your power...which in turn gives you an appropriate level of grumpiness. --Smashvilletalk 17:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense; the prerequisites of adminship are (1) had your talkpage blanked by an IP, (2) been accused of at least three words ending in "ism" and (3) had at least one argument with Baseball Bugs. There's a checklist – iridescent 17:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
It's like you just went through my talk page archives. Tan | 39 17:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I think another one is, "Likes to argue with brick walls". --Smashvilletalk 17:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Stop this requirement creep at once. Policy is clear on this matter. Skomorokh 18:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh... I get on pretty well with Baseball Bugs - and Duncan Hill, for that matter... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
So do I, but it sure doesn't stop him arguing with me. I guess if you haven't had an argument with BB, one with Smith Jones would be an acceptable substitute. – iridescent 21:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
"Arguing" with Smith Jones would be akin to arguing with Gabby Johnson. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I've never been in an argument with Bugs (well...not a real one that I can recall), but I've read enough of Smith...someone should've given him spell check for Christmas. Bugs is at least well-liked enough to have his own stalker. --Smashvilletalk 23:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
That's when you know you've arrived. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Sheesh. I've never had an argument with either (although I've read BB's comments here), nor have I had a stalker (not looking to fill the position, either). Maybe it's that I read stuff like this for fun, & folks consider me strange even by Wikipedia standards. But I can get grumpy. -- llywrch (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


New account 104Serena (talk · contribs) has plunged straight into editing a number of articles on contentious issues (such as police action, feminism, porn, depression) and made edits which, while having innocuous edit summaries, remove cleanup templates around neutrality, OR, unreferenced claims, etc. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I see two edits which removed templates; one was a revert to a previous version, and the other, well, who knows, maybe it was malicious and maybe it was an accident. Is there a reason you came here first instead of first asking them why they did it, and telling them not to do it again?
I do not see any problems. Have you cautioned the user yet? Bearian'sBooties (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
New editor? I doubt it. dougweller (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
WP:SOCK does not disallow unnamed alternative accounts, so this is not actionable as such straight out just because it appears to be a sock. Actions done by the account, however, may well be blockable, although I certainly don't think it has reached there yet. neuro(talk) 19:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Lindale13 again[edit]

This is more or less a pro forma notice, since it involved a lot of pages... Please see User:Lindale13 in the ANI archive 500. This user, as discussed there, was mirroring the user pages of others into their user space, via copy. I don't think any major harm was intended, but it's a GFDL violation, and worse, it was making some categories wonky (any category that a given page was in also had the mirror page in it too). I suggested to the user (at User_talk:Lindale13) that they should reply. They did so, but to the ANI archive, rather than their own user page or mine. Based on what they have said, (about not needing the pages, and about "deleting them" (actually what they did was blank the page that linked to them, making the pages unreachable, but not deleted) and the issues originally raised, I've deleted the entire swath of pages, as can be seen in my deletion log: [1]. I shall notify the user of this discussion. As always I welcome review of my actions. ++Lar: t/c 22:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm... I do hope that he is able to follow course work requirement and project assignments criteria a little better than he does WP:Practice and Principles. Yeah, fine. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Error in Fundraiser Headline[edit]


I'm sure a lot of admins have suppressed the fundraiser banner, so they don't see it on each page, but there's a rather embarrassing misspelling in one of the messages and I haven't been able to find the page from which to correct it:

Merci et bravo pour votre impartialité !Benoit from Luxembuorg, donated 30 EUR (Thank you and bravo for your neutrality!)

"Luxembuorg" is spelled wrong, I haven't been able to find any location which is so spelled. It should be "Luxembourg." Pretty sure this is an admin task, but I have no idea where the notice is generated from. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 00:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The class is "siteNoticeBig notice-wrapper", if that helps anyone locate it. neuro(talk) 00:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
It's probably on Meta-wiki. Majorly talk 00:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The banner is created by the Foundation staff... Shoot an e-mail to foundation-l at Avruch T 00:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the quote translations are editable by meta admins, has been taken care of by Marybelle. Avruch T 00:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of rollback[edit]

Resolved: Anything going on from this is going on at the talk page. neuro(talk) 10:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This is most aggravating. Editors who have been using the tool for a long while should be very well aware when rollbacking should be utilized, but coming from a sysop no less, I expected better. Thoughts on what to do? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 01:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

How about trying a little harder to not be so irritating? olderwiser 01:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
That gives you absolutely no reason to imply I am vandalizing. Your bad faith revert on that redirect should be undone immediately. You don't deserve the rollback feature as far as I'm concerned. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 01:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense. You were making repeated blatantly nonproductive edits under the mistaken aegis of WP:BRD. olderwiser 02:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Bkonrad that comment was out of line, I suggest you retract it. As for rollback abuse, rollback should never ever be used to revert a good faith edit. However I should also point out that both of you are close to breaking the 3rr--Jac16888 (talk) 02:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll concede the comment may have been out of line for this forum. However, this editor, despite knowing full well that his edit is blatantly nonproductive, and even apparently agreeing at least to some extent with me[2], he has WP:POINTedly once again reverted here and here. I'll stand by my characterization as irritating. olderwiser 02:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Stop wikilawyering to justify yourself. Your use of rollback, in an edit war, was out of line, if you refuse to accept that then perhaps your permission should be revoked--Jac16888 (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
What wikilawyering? The edits were blatantly nonproductive and he failed to follow up on discussions that he initiated before reverting while incorrectly invoking WP:BRD. olderwiser 02:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Even if your assessment is 100% accurate, in no way does that justify your use of the rollback function, which never should be invoked in a content dispute, regardless of who's right or wrong. You've been a sysop since May 2004, so I would hope that you're aware of this. —David Levy 03:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll admit that my use of rollback may have been motivated by a fit of pique. I should have manually reverted the edits and once again attempted to explain to irritatingly deaf ears why the edits were unproductive. olderwiser 03:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. In such a situation, it also can be helpful to consider allowing someone else to revert. The edits appear to be relatively minor (rendering reversion non-urgent), but if you're correct in your belief that they were "blatantly nonproductive," an ample number of users should agree. (I realize, of course, that it's easier to prescribe that type of patience than it is to summon it in the heat of the moment.) —David Levy 03:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have protected the page for a week. Please settle this dispute on the talk page, either way (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks for looking into this. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 02:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Admin help needed at WP:EAR[edit]

Over at WP:EAR, there's a situation which needs additional admin input. Please see: this thread, titled "Editing assistance in continuation war". Any admins with special skills in rooting out sockpuppets would be most appreciated. This one has my spidey-sense tingling. Thanks. 03:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: Article redeleted. No further action required if not recreated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Davidx5 (talk · contribs) has already been blocked twice in less than two weeks for repeated disruptive editing. He doesn't like the article at Hispanic, so he keeps putting in contentious edits, which keep getting reverted. He then created Hispanic (updated), which contained his personal point of view, and that got speedy deleted. So he's just re-created it, I've listed it for speedy deletion as db-repost. Somebody needs to take Davidx5 in hand and explain that he can't have his own articles, and if he continues, he should be long-term blocked. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 04:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Questionable block of RMHED (talk · contribs)[edit]


Seems sorted out, dramaz now. rootology (C)(T) 04:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

collapsed for readability
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm moving this discussion here to get it off RMHED's user talk page now that he or she has been unblocked:

I'm looking at it. Hang on. I think the technical question is whether the first prod removal counts as a reversion.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Having kept on reverting and thereby violating the 3RR was clearly inapprorpriate and warrants a block for 48 hours given the fact that you have been blocked once for edit warring already. The right course of action would have been to wait for an administrator to decide on that request for speedy deletion. — Aitias // discussion 23:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I would assert that RMHED's removal of the CSD tag was legit and justified (non-admin decline CSD). Further, that re-adding the CSD tag by the IP was inappropriate, and at least disruptive (perhaps vandalism). We don't keep nominating articles for speedy once they're declined. I'd support unblocking, especially if RHMED said war is ended. Toddst1 (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Can someone point me in the direction of something that says you can't put the speedy tag back?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • A couple of things: I don't see 4 reversions of content, though I don't think WP:EW is as reliant on 3RR as it used to be. Second, if Aitias made this block under the impression that RMHED can't (As a non-admin) remove CSD tags, he should probably reverse it (unless the block was made mostly about edit warring rather than the disposition of the template). I won't reverse the block myself, but I'm leaning toward it being shortened (and come on, the 3rr block was a year ago... not like ascending block lengths applies). Protonk (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Mmm, I thought I was reviewing it. But if you want to, that's fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Speedy_deletion Toddst1 (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • If you disagree: Anyone except a page's creator may contest the speedy deletion of a page by removing the deletion notice from the page. ...
    *Renominations: Either a page fits the speedy deletion criteria or it does not. If there is a dispute over whether a page meets the criteria, the issue is typically taken to deletion discussions, mentioned below.
That doesn't say "you can't re-add the tag", it just says you shouldn't. Protonk (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Additionally, Toddst1, “non-admin decline CSD” is not the proper way. Non-admin closures are right for AfD. However, admins do decide on requests for speedy deletion. If one disagrees, he goes to DRV. — Aitias // discussion 00:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely false. Non admins (even ip editors) are free to decline speedies. Protonk (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
You can feel free to review it...not sure where that comment came from. Consider this a friend of the court brief if you like. Protonk (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Wouldn't the IP that reported this be just as guilty of WP:3RR in this case? I suspect that at least a warning should be given there as well. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 00:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't wild about his "That's it, I'm getting an admin" (I paraphrase). Look, I'm inclined to think that the first removal of the tag was not a reversion, since that is the accepted way of contesting a speedy. And the "edit war" did not actually involve content, but rather procedure. Thoughts? Amicus curiae?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
As a non-admin observer, I'll just add my opinion. This appears to technically be a violation of WP:3RR by both parties involved; but as it's only a dispute over procedure, was relatively minor, and was quickly resolved ... I think a reminder/warning to both parties to use dispute resolution in the future should be sufficient. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 00:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • also, it was 4 reverts, not a prod removal and 3 csd reverts. the IP said prod in the edit summary but meant CSD, so the technical violation exists. Protonk (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been told not to renom for speedy deletion, as the removal of the tag by anyone other than the article creator indicates it doesn't meet the speedy criteria ie. there is an indication of notability as determined by a good faith editor. My understanding was that the very act of removing the speedy tag is one of disputing the claim, and that allowing it to be restored allows that dispute to go unregistered, and is improper. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'm thinking. I'm thinking that removal of a speedy tag is not a revert. Doesn't quite answer the edit war question though.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
My suggestion is reduce the block length (warring is warring) and warn the IP. Protonk (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. Policy says non-admins can delcine CSD. I recommend unblocking. Toddst1 (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Toddst. This is an awful block; ten seconds looking at the article shows it's clearly not a {{db-bio}} candidate. A blatantly inappropriate tagging like this is disruption, and removing the tag in these circumstances isn't covered by the spirit of 3RR, whether or not it's covered by the letter. Aitias, please reconsider this one. – iridescent 00:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
@iridescent: Well, the policy does just not cover obvious vandalism. Do you really consider this tagging obvious vandalism? — Aitias // discussion 00:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Removing the speedy tag, as I understand it, means that there is reasonable doubt about the speedy nom and "where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead". So restoring the speedy tag is inappropriate. Asking RHMED to seek outside help if someone reverts his removal of a speedy or prod tag twice (once and then again after being informed by RHMED why we don't re-add speedy tags) seems to me to be enough. And this assumes the act of readding a removed tag isn't inappropriate enough to simply be a kind of vandalism (perhaps not malicious though) and to warrant reversion without considertion to edit warring (is it an edit?). ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I am a non-Admin - just came across the issue through Huggle noting the page change (and I have since edited the article involved, adding some sources). From the outside it looks as if the 3rr tail is wagging the encyclopaedic dog here. I wonder if it may be better if necessary to IAR rather than try to make a round peg fit a square hole? Springnuts (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, you win on the wiki equivalent of statutory interpretation, but it still was a lousy way of settling a dispute. Better to put a note on the talk page or something. Or put a hangon tag (yes, I know it would have been misapplied), and go seek administrative help. Find a better way next time. And the rollback loss stands, I can't and wouldn't do anything about it as it would be wheel warring, and I think the loss is justified. Go back to square one on that one.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

(Maybe a bit outdated, but here is my response, which for some reason wasn't published earlier - Please assume good faith in my actions and do not suggest I was trying to vandalise anything!!) Hi, I wasn't aware that this would end up being such an issue. I am sorry if I am not using the right terms, but after reading policies for over 3 hours now, I am still confused about this: Template:Bio-warn asks that a db-person template is not removed, but instead that the hangon tag is used. I think somewhere else I read that the tag can be removed by anyone (not just admins), but then what's the point of having a hangon tag? In any case, if this is such a issue, then please do remove the ban from RMHED. I did not intent to cause a war, but I would appreciate more constructive discussion (like this), something which RMHED does not do: he never cited any reasons for his actions, he merely kept undoing what I was doing, while I tried to point him to related policies and articles. Based on my understanding of the policies, I fully agree with what Aitias said, but please accept my apologies if I was wrong, and be assured that in no case my efforts were an attempt to vandalism (Toddst1). I will now take the case to WP:AFD. Thanks, Anthony (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Basically, anyone except the creator can remove a speedy-delete tag (not only admins, as someone says above); the {{hangon}} tag is for the creator of the article. – iridescent 00:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This is an awful, awful block. The blocking admin seems to not understand CSD policy because he has mentioned more than once that an admin should have removed the tag. Disruptive tagging is tantamount to vandalism. Obvious vandalism is an exception to 3RR. --Smashvilletalk 00:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If you consider obvious good faith edits to be vandalism, Smashville,... — Aitias // discussion 00:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
What part of them was obviously in good faith? Edit warring with a tag is clearly disruptive. It's not like it's not disruptive at 3 and suddenly disruptive at 4. --Smashvilletalk 02:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

(to Anthony)Thank you. But consider yourself warned, too. Going back and forth, even if technically within the letter of the rules, is a bad way of handling thing. You should have tried to talk it out, or seek help once you realized there was a good faith dispute as well. I've unblocked RMHED, but he loses his rollback privileges unless he persuades the other admin to give them back or reapplies for them after a decent interval. This doesn't reflect well on anyone. I've got two users who should know better, an admin whose probably hopping mad at me for undoing something I'm not saying he was out of bounds to do, even though we disagree, and I don't feel 100 percent about this. Sigh.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

On what basis is the power of rollback still revoked? Is someone saying it's a policy that inappropriate speedy templating shouldn't be reverted? Is it an "edit" in the "edit war" sense? Isn't it enough to ask RHMED to do a better job on patience and explaining (something I think we're all guilty of at times...)? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What I am saying is that I can only go against another admin where policy allows. Policy allows a blocking action to be reviewed on request by an uninvolved admin. For me to otherwise use my admin powers to reverse an administrative action of another admin, that I know the admin disagrees with, is what is called "wheel warring". The rollback was not part of the block, it is entirely separate and within the admin's discretion. And RMHED shouldn't have used rollback anyway. RHMED must either ask the admin to reconsider or else reapply for it in due course.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

(to Wehwalt) Thanks, I agree with you and accept the warning, but my problem as a user is that after reading the policies for about 4 hours now, I'm still not sure who is right or not. Again, my issue was that I used the talk page to make my point and tried to refer him to policies, whereas RMHED's only reasoning was that the article asserts notability (with no external references) and that's it. I should have known better, but maybe it would help if policies were clearer and some users a bit friendlier if they see someone not following policies correctly. I understand and accept it's difficult to moderate everything, but my common sense says that someone's plain CV is not fit to be an encyclopaedia article. Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) requires independent reliable sources and surely one person's website can't be that! That's what I tried to communicate and I think it would have been better if people would be a bit more open/communicative and it would have saved all of us the trouble. As far as I am concerned this is over, I accept the warning but can't accept that my actions were anywhere close to vandalism. Thanks to everyone for the help/suggestions, sorry for the confusion and Happy New Year. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 00:57, 30 December 2008

Just a last comment by me[edit]

The reverts were a blatant violation of the three-revert rule. I don't understand why people keep claiming this would not have been covered by the policy. The policy does not cover obvious vandalism, that's right. However, this edits were exactly the opposite: Evident good faith edits (cf. Anthony's statement above). Therefore this block was completely justified, as I honestly think. Why the double standards? Sorry, I can't understand. However, be that as it may. — Aitias // discussion 01:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If it were a {{prod}} template, there would be basis in repeated removal, as once a {{prod}} is removed (except in obvious mistake), it should not be re-added. CSD, on the other hand, is just like any other tag except that only the page's creator is restricted from removing it, yet it could be re-added. Thus, repeated removal and/or re-insertion when it's not obvious vandalism is still edit warring, and in this case the two other users, Moeron and, appear to be acting in good faith despite also being part of the edit war by re-inserting the tags themselves. --slakrtalk / 02:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Question: If an admin declined the same CSD template 4 times would they too be blocked for a 3RR violation? Or is it only edit warring when you're a non-admin? RMHED (talk) 02:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
It's pretty clear here that Aitias and Moeron did not understand policy on CSD. (!) Worse, it appears to have been a factor in your being blocked. He or she hasn't admitted it but a pretty decent number of admins have hammered that point home. Several of us have said you shouldn't have been blocked. I recommend you have a beer and call it a day. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
As it's almost 2.30am here a beer probably isn't a good idea. The loss of rollback is a nuisance as I used it occasionally for vandalism reverts but mostly it was a quick way to see if there had been any changes to pages I'd recently edited via my contributions page. Without the rollback option being visible I have to click on the history of an article to see if there's been any new edits. RMHED (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Indeed...sometimes it's okay for an admin to simply admit they made a mistake...doesn't appear it will happen here. --Smashvilletalk 02:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm just very glad that at least one other admin was impartial enough to see that my block was justified. — Aitias // discussion 02:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Wait...the fact that we disagree makes us not impartial? --Smashvilletalk 02:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Smashville, you are that good in twisting somebody's words, I can't even believe it. — Aitias // discussion 02:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused...all I did was state what the implied statement you made was. It's irrelevant. The mere fact is that I disagree with your block. I don't see what I have to do with anything. --Smashvilletalk 02:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. No partiality that I can find on the part of smashville, me irie, etc., other than disagreeing with a bad block. Implying partiality is pretty obnoxious. You know, when you're in a hole, stop digging, Aitias. Toddst1 (talk) 03:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Toddst1, may I kindly ask you to stop putting words into my mouth? I said nowhere that iridescent would be not impartial. Additionally, I'm not in a hole at all and I'm not digging. Unless you consider saying one's honest opinion as digging. — Aitias // discussion 03:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
No intent to put words in your mouth. I read what you wrote. Please clarify: If the other admins were not "impartial enough to see that my block was justified", we were ... ___? How am I and Smashville different than irie? Toddst1 (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

RMHED Question[edit]

  • Aitias could you answer my question above please. If it's classed as edit warring then it applies equally to all users. So would you honestly have blocked an admin and revoked their rollback if they had performed the same edits? RMHED (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Although I'm obviously not Aitias, I would have definitely done so with an admin. Thankfully, I never get a chance to do that, as admins tend to avoid edit wars like the plague, hence the reason why it's rare to ever see them get blocked for doing so. We would simply simply post to WP:AN, WP:ANI, or ask for a third option to gain consensus. Alternatively, I'd even consider dropping the article to articles for deletion on behalf of the other user even if I thought it should be kept, since that's probably the best venue for deletion discussions. That, or stick a prod on the article also on behalf of the user then let someone else remove it if they want to. If it's obvious it should be kept, either routes would solidify a "keep." For myself, except in cases of clear vandalism (i.e., where a revert is so obvious it actually doesn't require an edit summary, hence the joy of rollback), I stick to the one revert rule and User:Slakr/Let someone else deal with it.
When it comes to users, though, when it comes to my decisions, there is a double standard that's actually contrary to the one you're positing. For example, while I would consider blocking an admin for edit warring (they're supposed to know better), when it comes to non-admin users, I can't say that I would have necessarily made a block due to the possible confusion of any given user between the nuances of the removing/re-addition guidelines for {{prod}} versus {{db}} versus afd templates unless it was clear they know them to begin with or had been repeatedly blocked in the past. That said, I also try to assume disproportionate amounts of good faith, but at the same time I also have disproportionate bias against all forms of edit warring.
I should also admonish all parties involved for implying bad intentions in either their actions or responses to actions. It doesn't help, in the slightest, to refocus discussion on the person's intentions instead of the action without providing proof of that negative intention.
--slakrtalk / 03:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @RMHED: An admin would never decline a speedy without giving any reasons (4 times!). What would have been wrong with talking to the —obviously well-intentioned— user and explaining him why the page does not meet our criteria for speedy deletion? What at all would have been wrong with that? Instead, you simply reverted, reverted, reverted. As you see from Anthony's statements above, this reverting without providing any reasons was a big problem for him. Overall, it was biting. I am entirely sure there would never have been an edit war if you had explained Anthony what he had done wrong. And yes, my decision to block would not have been different if you'd been an admin. I simply can't understand why people enjoy biting newcomers that much. And I can't at all understand this double standards applied here. This was, as I explained above, a blatant violation of the 3RR. As slakr explained, it was an edit-war. The block was warranted. — Aitias // discussion 03:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What is this doing on AN/I?[edit]

RMHED was blocked. Block was soundly reversed. IP editor created an account. All is well. I don't think Aitias needs to be raked over the coals here. Protonk (talk) 04:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:HOUND by IP user[edit]

An IP user logging in from 84.139.*.* (the IP address seems to vary with every edit) has been wiki-hounding me for the last couple of weeks - especially the last few days. Since he or she does not have an account or a fixed IP address, the easiest way to confirm this claim may be to look at the articles I have edited recently and track his contributions. Besides having an apparent dislike for my work, he seems to have a faint but consistent German nationalist slant.

(I brought the matter here a couple of days ago; he replied by making claims on my edits that were prima facie false - at times these claims were contradicted by the diffs he had given. This seems frivolous, to say the least.) Feketekave (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

PS. Interestingly, Geolocate shows that this user is logging in from Rostock in Pomerania (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern). Can somebody run a check against two recent users in Talk:Drang nach Osten? User:Skäpperöd and User:HerkusMonte may have compatible views, declare themselves to be from the same region and have been contributing to the page where the wikihounding started. No offense intended; I hope my relations with those two users (should they be distinct from each other and from the misbehaving IP user) will continue to be cordial. Feketekave (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The List Companies[edit]

Resolved: Seeing this is a redlink, this is resolved. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody please speedy delete The List Companies? I've now got three "new" editors, including the article's original creator, who has a conflict of interest name that's similar to that of the company, removing not only my db-spam tag from the article, but also CorenBot's copyright notice. Salting may be necessary, too. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 05:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Need a Rangeblock[edit]

Could I get an administrator who knows ranges to work a rangeblock that'll hit all three of these Comcast IPs? They're sock- or meatpuppets of (talk · contribs) and have been harassing users involved in blocking the socks and WP:CHECK as of late. Thanks in advance. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 06:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

  • for the close pair, (No go) for the whole. What makes you think that comcast isn't just assigning dynamic IPs across a large range? Do you think the smaller range will block a few potential socks from being created? Protonk (talk) 07:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm going to agree with Protonk on this. We had a situation abotu a month ago where someone had a Bell Canada IP, and had dynamically assigned addresses over a /8 range. It was kinda like this. Given the size of the range, and the way many large ISPs assign dynamic IP numbers, it would be as ineffective in stopping such a person with a range-block as it would be just handing out individual whack-a-mole blocks. The targeted ranges only have a random chance of stopping him, temporarily, while they will also block otherwise good users at the exact same rate, thus making any rangeblocks in this situation pointless. WP:RBI and semi-protect for short durations (a day or so) as needed seems to be the only way to stop this. Yes it sucks, but given the way that Comcast likely handles assigning its IP addresses, its the only feasible way of doing this. Get your whack-a-mole hammers ready... 15:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

How should this spam be dealt with?[edit]

This page: is continually being added by various editors to articles. It's clearly spam but there is no point in dealing with the editors as they are often one-off IPs. Another page, is also added which I think is basically there to lead to the financial services page.

I'm not clear how to get this blacklisted (if that's the solution), and whether this should be done only locally or over all Foundation Wikis. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 09:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Talk to the MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist folks. They R smrt. They can figure out how to add that to their regexes and what-not. :) They can also probably answer the foundation vs. en-wiki question. Protonk (talk) 09:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I looked at that page first, and it seems that is only for the en version, but I'll have a go, I can only learn! dougweller (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

KOAVF: Community Sanction, editing banned pages[edit]

Despite the of October (which stated, among other clauses "Koavf is prohibited from editing pages relating to Morrocco and Western Sahara, broadly construe. This includes talk pages, and other related discussions) yesterday 29 Dec 08 KOAVF returned to start editing, and immediately started out with stealth edits to Western Sahara pages. The edits themselves are merely minor, if irritating, semi-POV edits to stable language, but right out of the gate from his return to editing, it appears, he violates a clear ban (based on this discussion for exactly the same behaviour: ; scroll up for discussion of ban etc).

KOAVF Edit History:

Immediate (upon return) W. Sahara Edits: SADR: (Comparison is merely w my last revert from some vandalism, highlighting he removed stable language, not a new addition, never mind he's specifically banned from editing W Sahara; I would note the deceptive "edit description" note marking it as spelling, when in fact it was POV on content).

Sagui El Hamra: (Editing again, rather more defensible insofar as he restored information, however as he is banned and already changing stable but to him controversial text, I would suggest he could have editing a talk page and asked a neutral party to take the same action, without violating his ban.)

I have not included some minor edits related to Western Sahara on non-W. Sahara pages, insofar as they would cloud the issue.

The key reason for this complaint is (i) of course it is a clear violation of the ban, but (ii) much more importantly edits such as to the SADR page (mislabelled as spelling, overturning stable consensus language to his preferred version, after months of quiet) are precisely what used to set off nasty edit wars between himself and the Moroccan partisans. As noted in the ban/block discussion of September / October above ( KAOVF has long edit warred over W. Sahara were it is more than evident that in the end only his POV is "consensus" to him, as Admin FaysalIF laid out in the original conversation, which has invariably touched off endless edit wars even with the most reasonable of editors. (collounsbury (talk) 10:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC))

Ban has clearly been violated, I am not sure if I should suggest a final warning or a block though. neuro(talk) 11:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Per neuro. Given this is the first time he's edited since 27 September, I'm not sure either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Eyh, given that the edits are not that disruptive, and given that there has been some time elapsed since that case, I'm going to issue a final warning here. If he continues to edit these pages, any editor has my support for another lengthy block. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC).
Good call. Any repeat is an unambiguous block, so pay out the rope and let him decide what to do with it. Guy (Help!) 13:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
If I may, first whether Kaovf gets his 20th or 21st block seems almost inevitable, but with respect to the triviality of the edits, I agree except for example on the SADR editing, as it was this kind of stealth editing (mislabelled, overturning phrasing that had been arrived at - to no single parties' pleasure, obstinacy as noted in FAysal's original discussion of a site ban) that has set off multiple rounds of edit wars with respect to Western Sahara & Morocco. The highly party political editing, and the habit of going silent for periods and then coming back and stealthily overturning consensus phrasing was well attested to before. I do not believe for a minute he was not aware of the ban, given how it arrived. I found it remarkably telling that the very moment he returned to editing, he snuck in the POV (minor to be sure, without a 'history' I would have ignored it) edit, under a mislabelled (as "spelling") minor edit. It is extremely difficult, taken a long history of such, to see this as merely a mistake in good faith, and it is exactly the sort of habits that set off edit wars with other editors. (collounsbury (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC))
This shows how Justin (Koavf) is so keen to blatantly close his ears to all calls. He clearly knows the reason why he decided himself to be off for all those few weeks. I'd consider this as 'him testing the waters' and suggest we leave it there for now. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Pixelface and WP:NOT#PLOT[edit]

Resolved: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pixelface started. No real other incident to speak of. Protonk (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

is removing WP:NOT#PLOT *again*

I've reverted it twice and would like out; some more people, please.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just reverted it to the wrong version (the version before the edit war) and suggest that you both take it to the talkpage. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm done here; it poped-up on my watchlist. He also hit Wikipedia:Plot. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • This is like the fourth time that Pixel's done this now, the last time only being about two weeks ago (see my report here about that). The issue has been talked to death on WT:NOT, with the consensus generally in favor of keeping PLOT, so discussion isn't an issue. While the last time, it was suggested to take to a user RFC, I don't see exactly how this would result in something beneficial - Pixelface simply edit wars over policy pages, and that's flat out not acceptable. --MASEM 12:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The editor who first created this disputed section has since disavowed it. I support Pixelface's actions in continuing to challenge this source of trouble. Note that interminable discussions of fictional guidelines rumble on elsewhere and the matter seems generally far from settled. It is a peculiar way to run things - that anyone can make up policy as they please - but our overall policies - WP:NOTLAW, WP:BURO and WP:IAR - indicate that all policies are contingent and secondary to our mission. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Protected the policy for a month, policy changes are discussed, not edit warred over. Next time there will be blocking. MBisanz talk 12:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
In the last AN/I discussion, the idea of a user-conduct RFC was floated. Rather than see this come back to AN/I once or twice a month, I'd like to see that user conduct RFC happen, because I think that's really the crux of the issue. A user conduct RFC may make it clear to Pixelface exactly how close to the edge he is. My suggestion is to get that underway. Nandesuka (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Working on that now. --MASEM 12:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I support a user conduct RFC here. The user is obviously misinterpreting IAR - it is meant to avoid situations where applying the rules would lead to a nonsensical result, not to allow users to make potentially controversial changes to policy without consensus. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC).
I support a user conduct RfC as well. Pixelface has gotten away with this behavior for months, now it's time to stop hoping he reforms on his own, and take more severe measures to (hopefully) put an end to the recurring drama. – sgeureka tc 13:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Great idea; reserve your seats now. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, sooner or later we're going to have to help Pixelface learn to accept good-faith disagreement and consensus, he displays a consistent pattern of refusal to accept consensus when it's against him. This is at least the third such dispute in which I've seen him involved as a major party. Guy (Help!) 13:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I've tried to reach out to Pixelface, albeit unsuccessfully. It's not the fact that he disagrees with certain policies and guidelines, or even that a few people support his views. It's that after he tries to make a change, and there's no consensus for it, he comes back a few weeks later and says WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and tries to push through the exact same change again. I've heard that consensus can change and sometimes you can push through an old proposal with a new audience, but Pixelface has pushed that loophole to the bounds of ridiculousness. Randomran (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
The RFC/U for Pixelface is now active: here. Hopefully we won't have to both ANI regarding this user for a while. --MASEM 17:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Fishy Indian Lawyer article[edit]

Indian Lawyer is showing the template {{grammar}} 20 times! But the edit page shows only a single occurence. Some kind of vandalism?? --KnowledgeHegemony talk 17:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Seems to have been nuked as spam. Guy (Help!) 17:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah was deleted! In fact it was me who nomed it for deletion as it contained little context to ascertain notability. But I still can't fathom what happened! Why was it displaying {{grammar}} twenty times! Was the template vandalised? --KnowledgeHegemony talk 17:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what it was, but the template seems OK, it's not been edited for a while. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


Skomorokh (talk · contribs) These are false accusations here and here. I consider this editors activities to be disruptive, lacking in good faith, and borderline racially based. This editor's support of whitewashing the Stormfront (website) article is not acceptable. I ask that this editor be blocked or permanently banned from the project. We don't need his type around here. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the other merits, he certainly appears to be well beyond 3rr [[3]] and certainly doesn't seem interested in the fact that his POV is being soundly rejected by the other participants on talk.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Here are difs from today when he undoes others work on the article. [[4]] [[5]] [[6]] [[7]]Bali ultimate (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
A pattern he apparently carried on from previus days as per [[8]] and [[9]] I don't think he can argue that he was unaware that there was, at best no-consensus on his edits and in fact an overwhelming majority opposed to them.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Among the diffs only [39] is a clear revert. In [40] Skomorokh moved a statement to a different place. In [41] (s)he removed a citation from the lead, because it is not necessary there. And in [42] (s)he simply merged 3 successive refs. I do not see evidence of a violation. Ruslik (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Just noting my agreement with Ruslik. 3RR appears to be intact. neuro(talk) 18:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Skomorokh added a "maintainer" template for himself at the top of the talk page of Stormfront (website) [10]. He seems to be behaving aggressively to other editors (warnings to Orangemarlin [11] and Verbal [12] on their talk pages about using the category "Neo-Nazi website", wikilawyering on the talk page pf the article) and adding racially sensitive material, out of context, to the mainspace article, based on newspaper reports of postings on the forums of Stormfront. He has written that on google "my method is simply to search for the word "Stormfront" and take information from the sentences in which the word appears". In view of the problem of WP:OWN shown by the maintenance template and his failure to understand the controversial nature of this article (as well as a likely COI), he should probably receive a topic ban of some sort: he does appear to be disrupting the editing of the article and causing needless offense on talk pages. Mathsci (talk) 13:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I restored this section after it was prematurely archived. Enigma message 18:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I just want to comment that I have left the article after being brought there by the comments made to both Verbal and OrangeMarlin's talk pages. I also noticed that every comment being made was seemingly controlled by this user. I questioned the notation at the top of the page box which then got removed. I am sorry to say but I too feel the WP:OWN is a factor here. Skomorokh is still working the page and asking questions at the talk page but it appears to me that everyone else has decided to as I did, leave. If this editor would slow down a bit and give others the opportunity to add to the article I find this would be helpful. For every edit someone else did, Skomorokh was right behind them making edits to the new additon with comments. I am just commenting so that maybe this editor will slow down and allow others to edit too without s/he trailing behind them. As it is now, I think the article is theirs for now. I am not sure what should be done though. --CrohnieGalTalk 12:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

One has to admire those with a strong enough constitution to wade into that cesspool. I don't possess a strong enough gag reflex to do much more than quickly glance at it and then dash to the bathroom to toss up my lunch. WP:Ownership and POV PUSHING appear to be a valid avenues of inquiry, although I have seen many more blatant cases. (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


No smoke without fire, and I'm a bit concerned about Orangemarlin. People will remember the secret ArbCom trial a few months ago. Orangemarlin realised he acted like a twat and promised to not do so in the future. Why then, is he accusing an arguably good-faith editor (come on, Sko's intentions aside, he did get the article to GA, which given the subject matter, is an achievement in itself) of "whitewashing" and threatening to tag all of Sko's contribs with COI templates? Clearly he's lied to the community. An all too common occurence these days... Sceptre (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Excellent commentary. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
This comment should either be refactored or removed, it's being unhelpful to the discussion. --CrohnieGalTalk 12:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
LMAO. Being a big fan of the mentioned body part, I don't find the term to be an insult to OrangeMarlin, but a compliment! Apparently, OrangeMarlin acted like a desirably warm, inviting, nurturing spring of life in the exchange! (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Lulu of the Lotus Eaters, Complaint re OUTING and HARASSMENT[edit]

I was exasperated to find that Lulu of the Lotus Eaters appears to be continuing the outing crusade of Bali ultimate at [[13]]. Lulu does this despite the exonerating results of the checkuser done against me. I made reasonable edits to the ACORN article and, unlike previous occasions, explained in detail why I was doing so, yet Lulu reverted them apparently just because I made them. As I recall I made several edits one of which was a mass revert of material (deleted previously by Bali) that happened to include maybe one Capital Research Center item and Lulu seized on this to again make allegations about my identity. Other edits to the article included an article from NPR which is considered on WP to be a reliable source. The fact that he is continuing the outing talk begun by Bali and continues to make allegations as to my identity contrary to WP:OUTING itself constitutes harassment against me. [[14]] Also, Lulu tolerates no inclusion of negative legitimate information about ACORN on the ACORN article. I request that action be taken against him for his flagrant disregard of WP rules. As an admin, he definitely ought to know better. Syntacticus (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Just here to say i note that my name is repeated again and again up above apparently in some complaint about lulu. My connection appears to have to do with one comment i made a week or so ago (now enshrined in Acorn lore as the "outing crusade"), and other edits i've done about this, that or the other thing. It's all very confusing. If there's an actual reason for my involvement in this, someone let me know (aside to syntacticus: I'm pretty sure that lulu is not an admin.)Bali ultimate (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I thought I read Lulu was an admin. I may be mistaken. The reason you are mentioned here is because you made an attempted outing which I subsequently learned is a very serious blockable infraction of WP rules. You desisted after being warned but Lulu appears to have picked up the ball from you and is doing the same (or very close to the same) all because I happen not to agree with his reverts of my edits to ACORN. Syntacticus (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I urge the parties involved to take a chill pill. This looks like an edit war / content dispute, and a minor one at that.[15] The sock/coi concerns are that Syntacticus added several sourcing links to contentious claims made by a think tank that he/she may be affiliated with, and is editing articles in a way that supports their position. Those concerns are not unfounded and are not answered by the checkuser's inconclusive result. There was an improper attempted outing, which was already handled here with a warning, but that is a separate matter - voicing sock/coi concerns is not outing. However, absent any blatant trouble, even if they are true Syntacticus is free to make good faith, anonymous edits here, and seems to be sincerely interested in participating in Wikipedia. When faced with a simple content question, and a murky question behind that of the legitimacy of editor accounts, perhaps it's better to stock to the content question. Wikidemon (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I looked at Lulu's edits, and they are troubling. Perhaps a: Lulu stop that, and a Syntacticus, please ask for community input about the sources that you want to use. I am extremely sympathetic to your point of view, but the sources that you want to use do not, as of yet, have community support. Request another mediation, ask more established users whom you trust or let CRC go.( on my way to notify lulu, as Im not sure he is aware)Die4Dixie (talk) 05:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I found what appears to be your insinuation that Lulu is a pedophile or a homosexual here [[16]] troubling. Lots of us are troubled by what lots of people do.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
D4D: Seriously, how can NPR not have community support? Why should I have to ask anybody's permission to cite NPR? My continuing concern with the ACORN article is that it very briefly and almost in passing recites just a few of ACORN's problems. It's as if ACORN chief organizer Bertha Lewis wrote the thing.(Perhaps the matter of ACORN's many legal and other problems would be dealt with in a separate article linked to in the main article?) As for the CRC item, it was just one in a mass blanking by Bali ultimate. This is not solely about CRC. This is about whether the ACORN article reflects make believe or whether it reflects reality. WP is supposed to be about reality, not about PR puff-piece BS. Syntacticus (talk) 05:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll look into it some more, so if I jumped the gun , I apologize. NPR should be a reliable source ( although I seldom like what I hear them say :-). This sounds like a conflict dispute, so I'll check out the talk page. If it is CRC related, then I stand by my previous statementDie4Dixie (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikidemon: I will take a rain check on the chill pill, but thanks for the suggestion. I want to get to the bottom of this. Syntacticus (talk) 06:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Syntacticus has made a career on Wikipedia of adding references to the Capital Research Center, and more especially to reports by Matthew Vadum. That behavior inevitably and justifiably leads to the suspicion that he is connected to one or the other of them. Regardless of his motivation, it is inappropriate behavior. I've repeatedly asked him to stop spamming links to CRC in articles. Wikipedia is not a publishing arm of the CRC. Whether or not Syntacticus is connected to the CRC or Vadum, he shouldn't be promoting them so excessively. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I think some of this could be resolved if all the users there would agree to mediation like was attempted earlier. He seems to think it is a case of WP:DONTLIKEIT rather than a problem with the source. I for one would agree again. I don't think the source is a good one for Wikipedia, but there are several sources I see used here that are as bad or worse. A difinitive statement from the mediation crew would resolve this. Or even a group of trusted neutral admins. could be formed to evaluate sources and make determinations for reliability in questions like this.Die4Dixie (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Shostakovich, DmitriÄ­ Dmitrievich redirect not allowed[edit]

Resolved: Amalthea 20:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Shostakovich, DmitriÄ­ Dmitrievich is official form of name found in library catalogs but I received a "not allowed" when I tried to create a rediredct page #REDIRECT Dmitri Shostakovich This causes link from library catalog to fail. Should be able to create redirects from library catalogs using official form of name to provide users with access to the Wikipedia author article.

compare results of,%20Dmitri%C3%84%C2%AD%20Dmitrievich,%201906-1975.&library=TRC were it doesn't connect to Wikipedia article

with one for Tomas Friedman,%20Thomas%20L.&library=TRC

Where it does —Preceding unsigned comment added by 9friedrich9 (talkcontribs) 17:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure that's how it works? There's also no redirect at Friedman, Thomas L. here.
In any case, I don't think Wikipedia should create misspelled redirects so that third party websites can interface with it more easily – that should be taken care of at their end. Also, assuming that it's not a live mirror, you won't see any change on the site unless they get a new database dump. --Amalthea 17:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
According to Google, that's a pretty common spelling. Even if DmitriÄ­ is a mis-spelling, it's still a plausible search term. Since I didn't see the reply above, i went ahead and created the redirect as requested. No harm done, I hope. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's a misspelling, it looks like an HTML/web browser character encoding problem to me, albeit a prevalent one. And I think the OP was also referring to the Eastern European convention of "last name, first name" listings. – ukexpat (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Right, it's an encoding issue. What they tried to write is Shostakovich, Dmitriĭ Dmitrievich. Anyhow, since the OP's link now works and displays the Wikipedia lead, I'll mark this as resolved, and add the site to meta:Live mirrors. :-\ --Amalthea 20:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

admin help needed to stop PDFbot[edit]

Would an admin please help and hit the big red stop button at User:PDFbot. I have noticed it is running through many pages on my watchlist and changing them, and have posted at bot owner's talk page to stop and discuss first. Cost of restarting bot later = 0. Cost of fixing lots of bad edits = considerable, perhaps. Thanks, doncram (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What is the specific problem with the bot? Hiberniantears (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
It is running through articles on NRHP sites and messing up the NRHP text and photos references, in my view. It replaces a standard reference that has 2 PDF links, one for a text document and one for an accompanying photo sets, by 2 differently formatted PDF links. I think it is malfunctioning in doing this. I have posted at User talk:Dispenser. doncram (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Bot blocked. Request reactivation here or on my talk page. Tan | 39 22:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Interim naming of December_2008_Gaza_Strip_airstrikes[edit]

We're having a problem where a fresh set of eyes might help. There is some discussion of what to call the article about the recent events in the Gaza strip. The article began as "Operation Cast Lead" named for the Israeli code name for the operation and some editors felt that this was a violation of WP:NPOV. That discussion (with the requisite renaming wars) began here and then continued here.

At issue is what to name the article in the interim, while we attempt to build consensus about a long term name. Specifically, that User:Cerejota might have overstepped by changing the name of the article to the current name while discussion was still ongoing. It seems to me that there is growing consensus that the article should be changed back for now if not forever, but that could be my own bias on the subject,

The general sense that I'm getting is that people are frustrated and unsure as to how to proceed both on the short and long term. So I'm asking for an admin to take a look and give us some feedback.

Lot 49atalk 23:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with Operation Cast Lead? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
We've had a few arguments raised: that an incident that involves killing civlians shouldn't be named after a poem, that by using the IDF name for it, we're endorsing their view, that no one in the media is using Operation Cast Lead to describe the events etc. There are screens and screens of arguments [[on the talk page in two main places if you want to read more. Lot 49atalk 23:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Lot49a, we do not discuss content here at ANI, we discuss behavior needing admin intervention. It is sufficient to mention that you are misrepresenting the views you do not share. Interested editors can see the arguments, for and against, in the talk page. I am responding to your behavioral claims separately, as it seems you do not have the full information available. It is also obvious from your post you do have a side to pick, which is unfortunate, as I haven't seen you argue in the talk page as one should. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm new to all of this and wondering if instead of AN/I I should have gone to RFC? It honestly doesn't REALLY matter what we call the article in the interim while we wait to decide about the long term name. Both names redirect to the same page.Lot 49atalk 00:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Article started as Operation Cast Lead, but when I arrived the title was 2008 Gaza Strip bombings here is diff. That is when the discussion that Lot references started. A discussion started to develop, and in the middle of it, User:Wikifan12345 User:RyanGerbil10 reverted to Operation Cast Lead believing, incorrectly, with it being consensus. Then I reverted, and then did minor refactorings for language. Someone suggested that rather than "bombing", "airstrikes" was more correct, and I agreed it was so and changed it. If I overstepped, so did User:Wikifan12345 and User:RyanGerbil10. I believe none of us did, but I believe RyanGerbill is mistaken in thinking he operated with consensus. He didn't.

Yes, I was WP:BOLD and WP:IAR to ensure that an incorrect title didn't remain: Operation Cast Lead makes a great redirect, and should be mentioned in the lead, but both the immense majority of the reliable sources and a need for editorial neutrality make it invalid as an article name choice. Consensus cannot operate against policy on a per article basis: systemic changes on policy are to be by systemic consensus. I stand by the judgment call made, as it makes us a better encyclopedia.

As to a generalized sense of frustration, I disagree. I think we are all discussing this, and we disagree and agree but this is normal. There has been two users I have had issues in particular, User:Wikifan12345 (I can provide diffs upon request) that I have asked to calm down as he was on the verge of personal attacks (this is the same user who moved against consensus himself and who I reverted, and who has in fact launched threats to "get higher authority" over disagreements, personalizing the debate) - and User: Cowmadness who made inflammatory, soapboxy claims in a discussion I WP:SNOWBALL closed as irrelevant, and then posted some stuff about "talking to Jimbo" in my talk page. Otherwise, I have seen no other expression of frustration, just disagreement.

As a reminder this article falls into the Discretionary Sacntions ruling of the ArbCom for all Israeli-Palestinian articles. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"we do not discuss content here at ANI", you say just three minutes before posting a comment that... hm... discusses content on ANI. -- tariqabjotu 00:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I had to explain my behavior, from my perspective. My intent was not to raise a content debate, but address my behavior. I am sure you are capable of understanding the difference. (no thanks! because you find them sarcastic) --Cerejota (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The original title was Operation Cast Lead. There were about 6 members discussion the title, resulting in a lengthy 10 paragraph debate. But Cerejota completely ignored the discussion, and unilaterally changed the title to Dec 2008 Gaza Strip Airstrikes. He said the original title wasn't neutral, but even if that were the case (which it clearly isn't), he had no right to change the title without discussing it in the talk page. The title could have been Israel is Evil and he still would have been obligated to look at the rationale. In any case, Gaza Airstrike doesn't even reflect the article, as it now contains heavy infantry and ground-based finding. It's been more than 20 hours and nothing has changed. This is just ridiculous. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Uh, sorry, wrong forum. In reponse to Cerejota's bevahior, it was completely unprofessional. Changing the title of an article before a consensus has been reached is a gross violation of wikipedia policy. In addition, the strong claim of lack of neutrality carried no weight, no merit, not even evidence, other than opinion/perspective that doesn't belong in such a controversial article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, whenever I called him out on his behavior, he told me to "Chill out". Lol. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikifan, you are factually incorrect, and if you are going to assert things to uninvolved people, at least have the common decency of providing evidence:

  1. The article started as Operation Cast Lead. The starting, as with most articles, was done without discussion, to my knowledge. Hence the article name was chosen by the initial editor. Yet, we can all agree he doesn't own the article, nor its name.
  2. It was moved within 4 and a half hours of creation by user User:Jandrews23jandrews23 to 2008 Gaza City Bombings arguing it was clearer. This remained the name of the article for a few minutes and then User:Ceedjeemoved to 2008 Gaza Strip Bombings (because it wasn't just Gaza City) only to be changed by User:Joowwww to 2008 Gaza Strip bombings as per MoS capitalization.
  3. This remained the name for almost four hours, until the debate that Wikifan talks about.
  4. It was changed by User:RyanGerbil10
  5. I reverted his change, first to the last version by User:Joowwww, then to a slight refactoring, and then upon a suggestion from another user, to the present name, that has remained due to a move-block in order to prevent a move war.

This tells us a couple of things, one that the "original" named had changed by a natural and inherent product of wiki-editing. The other is that at least three users had endorsed variations of the article name that were more similar to the present version, but neither their opinions were solicited, nor enough time was given for them to give an opinion. Since they operated uncontroversially, at the very least the discussion should have lasted as long as their version did, but in reality, it should have been longer. Wikifan's allegations are weak and without evidence: he has claimed in multiple occasions that I reverted the original name. I didn't. I reverted the name as it stood before the discussion happened.

So having fixed the chronology, an exploration of the discussion referenced by Wikifan also reveals he is misrepresenting facts by simple assertion:


I don't. The current "2008 Gaza Strip Bombing" seems fine. LOTRrules (talk • contribs • email) 23:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


Other IDF operations' articles are called by the name of the operation. Why should this article be different? (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


If we change this one we'll have to change all but that's ok. It seems actually unfair to have an article about a military act with that many civilian casualties named after a poem. My problem with the gaza strip bombing is that there were many bombings in 2008 against gaza, see 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict. So we should find a better name or leave this one but not return to the operations name as it is only called that way by the IDF and the rest of the world calls it gaza bombings or something... --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


What about "Late 2008 Gaza Strip bombings"? I think it avoids both ambiguity and the not-widely-known operation names. Darwish07 (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


Well "Operation Cast Lead" would be actually better than 2008 Gaza bombings, but it isn't known for that name, internationally I mean.It's fine with me if u return it to that name but wait until 3 more Users or the majority of the biggest contributors agree.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


I believe the Military History project has been over this countless times, so I'd suggest checking their discussions before adjusting other articles. Joshdboz

LETS WAIT FOR THE EVENTS TO UNFOLD (ie keep current name for now)

We should wait and see what unfolds between the two sides. Its current name, 2008 Gaza Strip bombings, fails to indicate that Palestinian rockets had previously fallen, and continue to fall, on Israel - the cause of the Israeli response. Chesdovi

FOR Operation Cast Lead

"I endorse the name change. Seriously guys, "Gaza Strip Bombing"? LOL. Wikifan12345 (notice how from the start, his attitude is not about having a discussion, but impossing his views by denigrating those who disagree with him) Happy138 Kormin RyanGerbil10 tariqabjotu topynate (this user has since changed his position, showing that consensus can change: WP:MILMOS#CODENAME states that "operational codenames generally make poor titles." The exception given is if the operation is amongst the 'most well-known' of operations, e.g. Barbarossa. Based on this, I retract my prior opinion in favour of Operation Cast Lead, and urge a name that follows WP:MILMOS.topynate (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, six users "for", one of which changed upon learning about our guidelines changed. However, seven users where either ambiguous or seemed willing to discuss the matter further rather than change right away. We don't vote nor do we have deadlines: this is hardly the wide discussion and strong consensus that Wikifan claims. In fact, it is a weak discussion among editors, and ignored arguments against and operated on a self-contained block, with RyanGerbil10 being the operator. It was not long enough, it didn't have enough participants (notably those who had agreed with the previous title).

Hardly a consensus, we can all agree.

So when User:RyanGerbil10 moved against the consensus of almost four hours (or almost half of the article life), I reverted to defend the neutral consensus. Wikifan (and to a lesser extent others) seem not to understand that consensus is not a vote. Consensus is what is most stable. Discussion is a way we can move consensus, but not the only way. It is clear the "original" name Operation Cast Lead was not consensus, and the alternatives developed by the natural process of editing. It was the WP:IAR action of User:RyanGerbil10 that lead to my actions: if the consensus of 4 hours was not going to be respected with having a wide reaching discussion because it was opposed, then there is no reason to respect the opinion of six guys who discussed this for one hour and a half. Wikifan's histrionics are just that, pure theater and do not stand to the facts.

Furthermore, Wikifan engaged in unproductive behavior, in spite of I calmly explaining my actions. I could understand why he might be non-plused, so I didn't escalate at the time. But his expression of exasperation are nothing compared to having to endure his trollish shenanigans.

Here is the specific thread and actions right at the beginning:


(at this point, I restore the previous name, with minor refactoring)




He threatens me with a "higher authority", beginning what would be a series of sarcastic remarks, and borderline incivility. If curious for more,


I respond that he should bring those higher authorities instead of threatening to, because threats are a million.

After a suggestion from another user pointing out how "bombings" was not really what went on, I changed it to the current name.

As you can see by the evidence, User:Wikifan12345 allegations and recollections of the events are mostly incorrect, except in a single fact: I did indeed move the page over any discussion, via WP:SNOWBALL due to lack of neutrality. While I didn't express it at the time, WP:SNOWBALL is also a form of WP:IAR. Having a one-sided, non-neutral title significantly keep us from advancing the quality of the project, clearly the intent and spirit of WP:IAR. It is a common-sense thing. Others my ponder my actions, but I didn't do them neither without discussion, nor without justification. There is no sinister plan, there is no ill will. There is the need to move forward.

Furthermore, consensus can change. Wikifan keeps on beating this poor dead horse instead of moving ahead with productive discussion as the events unfold, forcing me, a productive editor, to stop editing an encyclopedia in order to contribute to the WP:DRAMA, something I hate to do, even when warranted. If you look at the talk page, while there is still some soreness, editors who support Operation Cast Lead have agreed to put a kind of a moratorium in place, and have continued productive discussions aimed at developing article quality. Wikifan, unfortunately, has assumed the role of a troll, sometimes responding to serious, well thought replies and counter-arguments with unproductive sarcasm. I am sure all of you can at least empathize with this.

(Note: I am a great believer and admirer of sarcasm, but Wikifan's use of it is both amateurish and POINTY - it took me a while to realize, me WP:AGF and all that - in fact, only common decency has held me back from calling him WhinyBitch12345 and fetch him a wambulance.)

When I have called him to chill, it is precisely because he needed to, and in every occassion I did so in context and pointing to WP:CHILL. I could have gone stronger on him, and gone all WP:WHINE on him, but didn't. I showed mercy and restraint, and should be commended, not attacked for it.

I am willing to let the matter drop, as this has not been really an important focus for me (see the talk page of the article), but Wikifan should agree to refrain from personal attacks and commentary, and should be careful to not misrepresent the reality of the events, as he just did. We need to be honest with each other, if we are to advance encyclopedic quality. Misrepresenting events doesn't help with that.

My apologies for the length, but if assertions and accusations are going to be raised against me, I will defend myself. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, am I actually expected to respond to this? You are the one being accused, NOT me. Surely with someone with more time will respond, as I wasn't the only one who noticed your blatant abuses. There a number of a users, check the archive and current discussion. This is a habit of yours, someone accuses you of something, and you respond with a well-crafted (almost pre-planned) defensive campaign, riddled with fallacies and subtle lies. Lol. I'm not even going to troll with you man, someone here who has the nerve to argue with you will. Your claim of NEUTRALITY is false, period. Operation Cast Lead was the title of operation as reported by the IDF, period. You made this more of a problem then it should have been and now you've put yourself in this hole. Obviously your concerned about your risk of losing admin which explains everything. Remember, I was plenty cordial and civil, but dealing with people like you makes me wonder if wikipedia is truly capable of hosting extremely controversial articles. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I am not an admin, and I have no idea from where you got this idea, because I have never presented myself as such. As to me being "accused", well, if anyone is accused, the least any rational person has to expect is that they will defend themselves, no? I do appreciate that you think my responses are well-crafted and take it as a compliment, but they aren't preplanned, just well crafted because, probably, I pay a lot of attention to what other people say, and read and interpret it quickly. In fact, I would rather spend my time editing and discussing editing. However, my actions are always motivated (correct or not) by a very clear purpose, which I always state upfront, and perhaps this lack of randomness gives me some clarity that seems preplanned. I already replied in the talk page with some peace-pipe stuff, do feel free to smoke it. .:D--Cerejota (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand is making automated edits[edit]

Resolved: I have read over this discussion over and over, and I am boldly closing it. There are two possible outcomes of continued discussion: 1) Betacommand is unblocked or 2) Betacommand is banned forever. Neither position has any real support whatsoever. So what we are left with is retaining the status quo. As I see it, that means that Betacommand is currently indefinately blocked, with no prejudice to starting a discussion at some point in the future for the purpose of revisiting the situation and possibly arriving at a set of conditions by which Betacommand can be allowed back into the fold. However, there is no indication that the community is in a position to constructively consider such a discussion at this time. The discussion has devolved into the "more heat than light" phase, and as such, I am closing it. 01:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand is making automated edits

Sceptre (talk · contribs)[edit]

This is unacceptable. Someone do something about it. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

[17] is also interesting. I find him amusing, like a return to Noddy or Mr. Men books.Die4Dixie (talk) 06:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

thumb|right|upright|WikiNoose Guess you'll be needing this. Toodles. Sceptre (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems like twat is the new word for the day [18].Die4Dixie (talk) 06:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I thought that word went out with buttonshoes, 23-skidoo, and Negro. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Apparently The Republican Party didn't get the memo. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
"Cunt" would get me blocked :D Sceptre (talk) 06:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
/EC/ Nah , 'prolly not, I think you're golden. You are a welcome and amusing diversion from tense edit and content disputes. I don't think that there is an admin willing to block you, and If I'm wrong, I'm certain one will unblock you posthaste. Carry on.Die4Dixie (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Then try "Berk", as John Cleese did on Olbermann, talking about O'Reilly. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but then again Cleese's from the (Very) Silly Party. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 07:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually "twat" will get you blocked, too. Applying crude, demeaning terms to your co-editors is inappropriate, and in this case seems to be part of an escalating pattern of incivility. - Nunh-huh 07:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Was going to say that he'd find himself blocked. In any case, Sceptre knows better. WODUP 07:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
This editor is untouchable. I have seen blocks for considerably lees. There is nothing to see here folks, I bet he'd be unblocked faster that it takes Gnasher to gnaw a bone.Die4Dixie (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Be sure to visit his website, "The Sceptic Tank". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Describing another user as acting like a twat is clearly unacceptable and I doubt that any ordinary editor would get away with it. We have developed a culture where certain editors do get away with offensive behaviour simply because the drama caused by blocking them considerably outweighs the benefit gained by blocking them. Generally said civility blocks don't work and it would be quickly overturned if he were blocked. It is extremely disappointing that a genuine complaint about something that is clearly genuinely upsetting to another user is not being taken seriously by participants in this thread. If Sceptre had any decency he would redact his immature comments now that he can see that OrangeMarlin is offended but of course he won't because being sensitive to the impact of his behaviour on other users simply isn't in his make-up. Spartaz Humbug! 07:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Note that Sceptre has now been blocked for this therefore striking through last comment because he can't actually change what he said now. Spartaz Humbug! 07:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "Twat" is an incredibly mild swear word in the UK at least. I've never heard it being used in a seriously derogatory manner, merely mild name-calling between friends. It's about as harmful as "idiot". Majorly talk 08:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Remarks posted on the Internet in the UK, however, do not seem to stay in the UK. - Nunh-huh 08:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
So you're assuming Sceptre is aware of every different culture's dialect and word usage? It's not his fault someone was offended. You're only looking at the result here, not the intent. Majorly talk 08:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
He was informed it was offensive, and continued calling his co-editors "twats". There's no ignorance involved. Calling your coeditor a "twat" is not civil; it's not appropriate, and it will get you blocked. - Nunh-huh 08:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I can see you blocked him. Majorly talk 08:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Then you also saw that the block was reviewed and maintained. - Nunh-huh 08:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
It strikes me as odd that someone as offended as OrangeMarlin was would be "ROFLMAOing" at the original comment. Majorly talk 08:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Odd, I thought another UK attribute was the ability to detect satire. So, do you really want to advocate for a "right" to call your Wikipedia co-editors "twats"? - Nunh-huh 08:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
That wasn't satire. And no, I never said it was right to be name-calling, but it's not something to block someone for 3 days over. Majorly talk 08:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad we're agreed about the wrongness of the offense, then, at least. I'd hate to see a "request for comments" on whether it's OK to say "you're a twat" to a supposed colleague. I take insults that demean not only those they are directed at, but also an entire class of persons not directly involved very seriously. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a hostile environment, especially to entire classes of persons. - Nunh-huh 08:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree it was wrong (as is any kind of name-calling) but the length is my issue. I think three days is beyond preventative and is becoming punitive. Majorly talk 08:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Since I reviewed the {{unblock}} request, I'll comment here: I declined to reverse the block due to the namecalling and the attitude that Sceptre showed in the early stages of this thread (see the "cunt" comment and the noose above). I looked at the length of time, and left it unchanged as this is not the first incivility block on Sceptre. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
My handy dandy Oxford English Dictionary informs me that it is a slang vulgar term for the external female genitalia, just like it is in the US. His comment about using it instead of "cunt" shows that that was his exact intent, to call users "cunts", and get away with it. I don't expect you would call your grandmother a 'twat'. My mother is from Scotland, I attended school there for some years, and I would never call my gran a "twat". Why not? Because it is a vulgar churlish word that demeans women and relegates them to the role of sexual objects, that's why. Die4Dixie (talk) 08:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Out of curiousity, dixie, would you say it's worse to call someone a "twat" or to imply someone you're in a content dispute with is a pedophile or a homosexual like you did here? [[19]]Bali ultimate (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

OK I think we've determined well enough that "twat" is an offensive word. Let's not keep discussing it for the sake of discussing it. Majorly talk 09:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You know, while I'm not exactly Spectre's number one wikibuddy, I can't help but find this exceedingly absurd. Are we really blind to the difference between somebody saying "you're a dumb twat" and "you're acting like a twat"? The British "twat" is analogous to the American "dick" - a term that, while slightly off-color, is hardly so grossly insensitive as to cause severe emotional distress to any but the most already-traumatized of human beings by its mere presence alone. If an "entire class" of editors can be, uh, "demeaned" with a simple four-letter word, then perhaps this esteemed "entire class" should work on being a bit less hyper-sensitive - or, alternatively, perhaps we could consider other words that might cause similar offense as fair game for action. A 72-hour block - even given Spectre's prior history - for a single off-color remark is rather excessive. Is there a multitude of prior Spectre/OM interaction, of which I'm unaware, that might elevate this beyond the point of extremely petty kindergarden bullshit? Badger Drink (talk) 09:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a single off-color remark, but rather several remarks which were problematic for being insulting to co-editors rather than merely off-color. And, for what it's worth, not all of them were similes rather than metaphors. As for 72 hours, it is, if anything, a bit short given the durations of the prior blocks. Blocks are supposed to escalate, not get shorter. - Nunh-huh 09:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Is the entire sequence of events "Spectre says something about OrangeMarlin having acted 'like a twat' in the past" -> "outraged editors pounce on Spectre" -> "Spectre gets a little outraged and defensive himself and drops a c-bomb on AN/I"? Generally, blocks should escalate, but there exists a balancing act between "law of diminishing returns" (see: Betacommand, above) and establishing a "one and you're done" zero-tolerance no-win situation. This particular case - as I currently understand it - is a bit too close to a "no-win situation" for my personal comfort. Badger Drink (talk) 09:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Your original point was interesting; however, the continued and deescalation shrillness (edited by user )of your message detracts from it and makes me ask quid bono. Your advocacy is passionate on the issue. You also conveniently forget the bad faith assumptions that he made about some Obama meat puppet thingamajig that's linked to above. Die4Dixie (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
That's "shrillness"? That's "escalating"? I guess you have me on "continued", but your statement seems so disconnected from the flow of reality as I know it as to almost seem like a Mad-Lib. I'll assume good faith. If you poke around, you can see that I have defended Mr. Marlin on numerous occasions, and was against un-blocking Spectre during his original three-month block for sockpuppetry and actual incivility. I don't believe users are typically blocked for making bad faith assumptions regarding meat puppet thingamajigs, but if you have examples of precedence, I would be glad to look them over. In any case, the block summary says, in full, "Incivility: escalating pattern of incivility, as demonstrated in thread at AN/I. A working environment in which crude sexual terms are tolerated is not conducive to production of an encyclopedia", which leads me to believe that he was not, in fact, blocked for bad faith assumptions regarding meat puppet thingamajigs. Badger Drink (talk) 10:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
[20]Die4Dixie (talk) 10:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Aaaaaaawwwwwwww, you unarchived it, ok Badgerdrink, if anything productive comes out of this in the next 20.5 hours, OM and I will help you write a Featured Article....XD Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice Majorly's comment, specifically, "So you're assuming Sceptre is aware of every different culture's dialect and word usage? It's not his fault someone was offended." I must concur with this, the first time I said the big C on IRC I got shot down for saying a word that it apparently extremely offensive in the US, and is sort of up there at the top as far as profanity goes. In the UK it is thrown around very liberally, even in a reasonably polite and mature conversation. I had not done research on how the word was taken in the US beforehand, and nor should I have, because why would you look for a cultural difference that you didn't know existed? neuro(talk) 10:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If this had been a one-off brain explosion on Sceptre's part, I'd probably have felt comfortable unblocking him with a stern warning not to do it again. However, it seems that the term was used multiple times. It's one thing to drop a word when you're genuinely unaware that people will find it offensive due to cultural differences, it's entirely another to re-use it for dramatic effect when you know that it they will. This takes it beyond "boys will be boys" and up to the level of a serious civility violation or intent to intimidate or offend, in my mind. As always, I suggest applying The Grandma Test before pressing "Save Page". Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC).

  • Lankiveil is right - "twat" has varying amounts of offensiveness depending on how it's used, and also where in the UK you're from. It's not just a synonym for "idiot". Black Kite 13:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
It's not as if Sceptre doesn't have a long history of attacking Orangemarlin, or me for that matter, both here and at Wikipediareview. His comment is simply another instance of his long-running personal ax grinding against OM. It's Sceptre's choice of "twat" to describe OM that needs to be dealt with here. It's use is simply unacceptable, and the fact that he's from the UK is no excuse; Sceptre, as a former admin, has been on Wikipedia dealing with US sensibilities for years. Sceptre simply knows better and yet still deliberately chose to employ the term here. FeloniousMonk (talk) 13:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Highly offensive. Good block. Sceptre has been here at least 3 years, but just this past spring he started accumulating blocks. What's the story there? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Burnout is my usual diagnosis. Thing is, sometimes you can call someone a twat in fun and it's fine, other times it's not OK. In this case Sceptre seems to be harbouring a grudge against OM. That's a really good reason to keep well clear and leave it to other people, especially if (as with Sceptre) the spotlight is on you already. It's really not a great idea to go using invective when trying to recruit admin help against people with whom you clearly have a long-running dispute. You might as well just post {{blockme}}. Guy (Help!) 13:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Looking more closely at his block log, he was indef-blocked several times, only to have it rescinded; then long-blocked several times, only to have it rescinded. All of that since last spring. You may be right about the burnout. Maybe a moderate block that doesn't get rescinded would be what the doctor ordered. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Sceptre is (or at least was) fundamentally decent, I think he needed and needs a break, I think he was unblocked / came back too soon, before the pressure had wound down. Guy (Help!) 14:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Given its Anglo-Saxon meaning, the only time I ever utter that word (which isn't too often, maybe thrice a year at most?) is when talking to friends who were brought up speaking English, I'd guess wontedly to make them smile about some dumb thing someone has done. The way Sceptre used it could easily be taken as a personal attack by many editors. As to why he slips like this, I can only say that maybe in a year or two or three, he won't. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I never heard the word "twat" until I tried using the word "saltwater" on some message board a decade or so ago and it got rejected because of the word it contained. Someone had to explain it to me, with my big, wide, wondering eyes.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the old Scunthorpe Problem :-) the wub "?!" 17:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Heh, I still remember first hearing it in the dining hall at boarding school when I was 14, uttered spot-on with its etymology (as I look back). That was a fit school :) Gwen Gale (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. You are all acting like saltwaters :) --Tom 15:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I was used to using the word in its lesser sense ("you're being a silly twat") until I managed to completely offend most of the members of my girlfriend's family when using it in front of them to describe someone who was drunk and being a bit of an idiot at a family wedding - which was when I realised that it is far closer to the c-word in certain parts of the UK, let alone in the US. (Luckily, I managed not to use it at our wedding)... Black Kite 15:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Still, you may have been luckier than Robert Browning, who seems to have thrown it into a poem, thinking it meant a nun's hat. Hmph. I'm starting to wonder if Sceptre even knew what he was saying. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
When we were younger and more innocent a friend of mine believed that "twat" was just a variation of "twit". So when our art teacher called another student a twit, he promptly followed up with "Yeah, you're a right twat". Needless to say he soon learned the error of his ways. the wub "?!" 17:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent) There aren't "degrees of insults" we should be using to rank such words. Its silly. If he called someone a "fool" or an "idiot" or a "poopyhead" it should be seen as the same level of WP:NPA violation as "twat". The issue is not the specific choice of name he chose to call someone, its the very act of calling someone such a name in an attempt to gain the upper hand in a discussion. Yes, and I know he qualified the statement with the meaningless phrase "acting like a..." but still, the issue is the behavior, not the specific word choice. See WP:MAJORDICK for more on why it really SHOULDN'T matter which words are chosen when we apply our NPA policies... 15:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. "Who let you out of the cabbage patch?" is funny and kid-friendly (so far as it goes), but still a PA. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I was once blocked for several days for calling people "idiots". If that T-word is supposed to equate to "idiots", then it's certainly blockable for several days also - especially given the editor's blocking history, along with his complete lack of understanding as to what constitutes a personal attack (see below) and thus his complete lack of any regret at having said any of that stuff. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Funny thing (not LOL funny, more ironic) is that I didn't care about the word one way or another. I may use fuck rather liberally, mainly because it's fairly mainstream these days, functions as a verb, adjective, adverb, and noun so readily that it's hard not to use. But demeaning words against women show a total lack of class. That being said and not being a woman, Sceptre's word choice was immature rather than anything else. It was his unnecessary attack that bothered me, considering he has been blocked before. This was an interesting conversation however. Oh, and when I wrote LMAO in my edit summary was that I couldn't believe Sceptre would actually write something. I was being ironic. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't too fussed about the words, but the noose I didn't think too much of...anyway. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Sceptre[edit]

Moved by MBisanz talk

Can someone post this on AN?: Regarding OrangeMarlin, that was hardly an insult. In that context, I was using it analogous to the word "dick". You don't need to get into hidden long-past grudges; sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. I left OM alone after he agreed to the parole, and only brought the matter up on ANI precisely because it's the behaviour he exhibited pre-parole that he admitted wasn't the best of attitudes. Maybe "twat" wasn't the best of words, but I'm using it in the context of "bleedin' idiot" instead of "fucking asshole". So as it stands, a 72 hour block for one non-insult and one relatively tame insult where I've arguably been provoked, even given past history, and with no-one just to point it out and say "dude, what the hell?", is way way overexcessive. As I wasn't planning on doing any major editing tonight—a book I've ordered hasn't come yet (why should it? It's Christmas)—I'll be fine with a 24-hour, or even a 31-hour block. But really... 72 hours is reaching into the bounds of punishment rather than prevention. Sceptre (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Don't want to buy into that, but there's also still the outstanding problem of OM's User_talk:Orangemarlin#Warning vicious ranting against User:Skomorokh. Granted this was initially because of apparent problems/miscommunication on Sk's part but OM's continued abuse of him (after everyone else had worked it out) was way over top. Misarxist 16:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not on parole. This is about Sceptre. I'm done here. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Note that Sceptre made baseless allegations about me on the workshop page of