Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive533

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Names for Americans[edit]

There are multiple ongoing issues at Names for Americans which all involve one user, User:Kwamikagami. I'm afraid this requires administrative action, but I'm involved in the discussion. Problems began when Kwamikagami didn't like the title of the article and moved it instead to the unconventional Names for U.S. Americans without discussion. He was reverted twice and referred to WP:BURDEN, but he continued to move it around until it finally landed at Names for U.S. citizens, saying the old title was "stupid, considering this topic" and that it was "perverse". He justified his actions saying that pages shouldn't be left at the "worst" title even if this results in an edit war[1]. Such belligerent responses have been typical of his subsequent dialog. He then began insisting that the name "U.S. Americans" is an accepted and common alternative name for people from the United States, but he could find no reliable sources demonstrating this. He continued to insert the phrase into different parts of the article, sometimes with poor sources (such as a Google Books search[2]) sometimes with no sources[3], and finally, with a mottled assortment of instances where the phrase is used assembled in a Wiktionary entry he himself created[4]. Despite my instincts about primary and secondary sources, I finally consented to include the phrase if he would source it properly, though I reiterated my opinion that it was not good editing. Looking at my statement, I definitely came across stronger than I should have.[5] (I partially refactored it [6]). However, his response[7] is in my mind totally out of proportion and totally unacceptable.

In my opinion the page ought to be protected and probably moved back to its pre-move-war location until the RfC is completed and a new title is decided. Kwami's rudeness, edit warring, and move warring are certainly uncivil and disruptive, and if he repeats this behavior elsewhere it may be a problem. For my part I am officially disengaging from the article (again) to let cooler heads deal with the issues at hand. --Cúchullain t/c 14:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

"America", when used by itself, typically refers to the USA. Anecdotally, I've heard this usage in the news, ranging from the British to Osama Bin Laden. I've never heard the term "U.S. Americans". That would be like saying "American Americans". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The dispute itself notwithstanding, Kwamikagami's behavior in this matter looks pretty bad. Edit warring over good faith edits is very rarely justifiable (WP:3RR). While I've only interacted with Kwamikagami once before (at Shona language, I believe), I'm rather surprised at this. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Lol, "U.S. Americans" was famously used by one Miss Caitlin Upton. Mike R (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There are two issues here: the name of the article, and including the phrase "US American" in the text.

  1. The article is about alternate names for "Americans" (inhabitants of the USA) when one wants to disambiguate them from "Americans" (inhabitants of the Americas). As such, calling it "Names for Americans" is deeply ironic, as people had complained before I moved the article. I don't much care which name is chosen, as long as it does not conflict with the very point of the article. Several adequate suggestions have been made on the talk page.
  2. The phrase "US American" has been referenced back to the year 1919 as a disambiguating phrase, including by the American Library Assoc. and texts on cross-cultural studies, though Cúchullain has repeatedly deleted the refs. This is little more than vandalism on his part.

kwami (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That's reasonably phrased. And "US Americans" seems to have taken root in English. -- Hoary (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
You may wish to read up on what vandalism really is before you start throwing accusations around (on the administrators' noticeboard, no less). At any rate the only "sources" I deleted were your Google books search and the Wiktionary entry you made up.--Cúchullain t/c 15:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I've been up all night without sleep, and am exhausted, so if that's the only issue here, then I owe Cúchullain an apology. But as it is, I'm fed up with him. He asked for refs, then argued the ones I provided weren't acceptable because they were primary sources (which are acceptable as long as they aren't interpreted by us), then deleted the link I added at his request because I had collected them on a Wiktionary citations page (they're the same refs regardless of where we put them, in a footnote or a citation page), then deleted them again when I copied some of them into the article in a footnote—that's what I called idiotic: deleting refs after repeatedly calling for me to add them—then deleted them again when I restored that footnote, objecting that I hadn't formatted them properly or provided page numbers—since when do we delete references because they aren't complete? Though none of his refs are formatted properly, and I had provided page numbers or entry names for some, and he deleted them all regardless. And he complains that I'm edit warring? Well, I really need to get to sleep. kwami (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
As a note I did not delete the primary sources you added, the only things I removed were your Wikitionary links and your Google results, which are not reliable sources by anyone's definition. All I did was hide the primary sources until you format them properly [8], which is required by WP:V. All the refs I added are in fact properly formatted.--Cúchullain t/c 16:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
If you did not delete them (I'm too tired to check), then I apologize for falsely accusing you. All I noticed that twice after you edited the article, the refs had disappeared. I provided title, author, date, in some cases publisher, page number or (in the case of dictionaries) entry name. That is sufficient for any reader to verify the info, so you are still removing references which meet reqs. Most cases without page numbers have the phrase in their very title, except for one case where it was nearly all pages, either way easily verifiable. As for "Google results", a reference is no less reliable because I found it with Google Books—that's all I can imagine you mean, since I never linked to any actual Google results. kwami (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting the case. You certainly did attempt to use a Google search as a source[9] and then browbeat us on the talk page for not accepting it as a source. And you certainly did not format your primary sources sufficiently, despite being directed to the policy requiring you to do so, as you can see here. You just gave a random list of titles, none of which have a page number indicating where in the book the usage occurs. Only one has an entry name. The fact that you would fly off the handle like that without even looking to see that I hadn't actually removed your refs speaks a great deal about the way you've been behaving. Your belligerent edit summaries and comments, your pattern of blind reverting good faith edits, and your refusal to follow policy all speak for themselves.--Cúchullain t/c 17:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If I might suggest, would you, Cuchullain, agree to give Kwami the benefit of the doubt that this dispute is being heightened by sleep deprivation for now? If the problem is still present after a few hours off, then you may wish to continue its pursuit- otherwise I'll think you find that you don't care so much anymore. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 17:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
That's a good call, Mendaliv. I'm sure everyone will benefit from a breather. I'm skeptical that things will improve very much, though, as his edit warring and rude comments have been happening for several days.--Cúchullain t/c 17:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Google search: Yes, I did give a link a few days ago; I had assumed since I was discussing the current dispute, that you were talking about the same thing. I don't contest that deletion and didn't remember it till you gave the diff link. And I see that I had jumped to conclusions that you were deleting the refs when you were just commenting them out. My bad for thinking you were being intransigent.
As for commenting out due to verifiability concerns, there were 8 entries, 1 with the page, 2 with the entry, 4 with the phrase in the title. That's 7 out of 8 which are immediately verifiable as containing the phrase; in the 8th (from 1922), I should have cited chapter 14, where it's practically every page. But your response was to remove them all, not just the one. kwami (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Systematic bias at Circumcision[edit]

Resolved

Some help or advice please. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't help with systemic bias (a content issue) here. Is there some particular conduct at issue? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
No significant edits to the article lately, nor significant posts to the talk page. And honestly, the response this same request would get at WP:EAR, which is probably the proper venue for this sort of request, is to check out WP:CSB, but that without more details nothing much is going to happen. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 21:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm guessing Gary's concerns are in this comment but that's a dispute as to how to discuss proposed changes to the article to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes... I guess I'm just frustrated. I have been watching the article for a year now and the pro circumcision editors make it very difficult to add anything that caste circumcision in a bad light. I feel they have been driving good editors away. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Then WP:NPOVN might be the place to escalate a dispute, but as there's no need for admin intervention that I can see, ANI isn't the right place for this. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 23:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I see. Thank you for your time. Garycompugeek (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Sledgehog0‎[edit]

Resolved: block settings modified by Tnxman307. Yngvarr (t) (c) 23:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I sent this to RPP, but it's not really a protection issue. Feel free to browse the history of the user talk page of this indef-blocked user. Would recommend disabling the option to edit own talk page, and would enable auto-blocking for a nice period of time (if possible). Yngvarr (t) (c) 23:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the block settings to disable talk page editing, since the privilege was being abused. TNXMan 23:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I've removed my request at RPP. Yngvarr (t) (c) 23:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked Ikip for canvassing[edit]

{{Resolved}} Blocking admin recused, no consensus that Ikip had violated canvassing rules, Ikip unblocked. --Abd (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Block review[edit]

Resolved: Unblocked; see next section.
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I've blocked Ikip (talk · contribs) for AFD canvassing, most recently in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia Lewis (10th Kingdom). I invite review. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Where was he canvasing at? Aren't you suppose to post a few links to prove your point? Dream Focus 10:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Was it just that one area? Where he mentioned something was at the AFD, at two other articles on characters from the series that were up for deletion as well recently? When delitionists make their rounds, nominating everything from a particular series at once, those involved in one should be made aware of the similar debates, since its basically the same thing usually anyway. In this case character articles from a series were all nominated for deletion. Dream Focus 10:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Ikip has long made a practice of pushing the boundaries of WP:CANVASS, and makes a regular practice of linking AFDs to favorable venues. His article talk contributions speak for themselves. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
And another related article was up for AFD three months ago, but other than that only the one article was on AFD. That's not "character articles from a series[..] all nominated for deletion" or "delitionists mak[ing] their rounds". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

AMiB - as a deletion-minded editor you are not unimpartial and not uninvolved. You shouldn't be the blocking party here. Ikip should be unblocked immediately by you and discussion and consensus achieved. Okay, you didn't comment in this AfD but your views are pretty obvious on the matter. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This attitude is disturbing to me. It gives anyone who villifies their opposition a shield against criticism or censure by that opposition, because obviously that villification is the only reason they'd act, right? Ikip has been warned and warned and warned, by a variety of editors and admins, about various probes of the limit of WP:CANVASS, and continues to constantly advertise AFDs, policy discussions, and many other discussions to favorable venues. My stance here has been consistent. The canvassing is a problem. It needs to stop. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Use of such shields amount to attempts to change the subject off the problematic behaviour. In many case it should be view as gaming the system. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Were the rules of WP:canvassing broken? Was it not a Friendly notice, which is allowed? There was Limited posting AND it was Neutral in the announcement, AND Nonpartisan, AND had Open transparency. If you believe someone has violated a rule, then you should discuss it here with others, and let the editor defend himself, before taking such an action. Dream Focus 10:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
(ecx2)I'm missing something here. This is the only edit (of two in total by Ikip) to that deletion discussion, which appears to come firmly under the heading of Wikipedia:CANVASS#Friendly_notices (if even that, since WP:CANVASS is more relevant to user talkpage edits than article talkpages). I also see you didn't get round to placing any warning that you'd blocked Ikip, nor did you mention on their talkpage the existence of this thread (I've now rectified that omission). Tonywalton Talk 10:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I can only do so much at once. I left a note at his talk page regarding the block immediately after blocking, then invited ANI review, then replied to DF at the same time you put a notice on his talk. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Your edit says nothing about a block. Tonywalton Talk 11:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it was going to be unclear that he was blocked, what with the big "You have been blocked!" thing whenever he tries to edit. However people end up feeling about the block, hairsplitting about the wording of a block notice doesn't particularly interest me. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't see it as tangential. Blocking someone unilaterally, without any apparent consensus, failing to warn them of it in a polite (or indeed any) manner previously, then taking it here without having the courtesy to mention it to them are what I might call unacceptable behaviour rather than hairsplitting, and do interest me. This is hardly conduct likely to encourage editor to modify their behaviour. I agree with others here; this is not a good block. Tonywalton Talk 11:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Two issues here. First, this pattern of canvassing isn't new. He's been warned about it both here and on his talk page, most recently over the whole WP:ARS recruitment fiasco and similar "FYI" posts for WT:FICT. Second, I was busy considering my first reply here when you linked the ANI thread on his talk page; I didn't even get a chance. I am done discussing the latter point, but invite review of the former. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Whilst we obviously have major issues with canvassing and votestacking on AfD and the Article Rescue Squadron, this isn't really a good block. Not so much because you're involved, but he hasn't really caused mass disruption. If he'd spammed a lot of editors with a partisan message then fine, block away, but a few editors (even if it's known they'll probably contribute in a certain way) with a "FYI" message? A stiff warning would've been better here. However, AMIB is absolutely right that the disruption emanating from certain quarters of the ARS (which has now moved into projectspace) needs to stop. Black Kite 10:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with above. Testing the limits of WP:CANVASS is not forbidden, breaking it is. If your only reason for blocking him is that he did not in fact break the rules, then the block was wrong. As this discussion shows, there is no such consensus that his actions were block-worthy and you should have considered proposing a block here rather than just doing it. Even if you are not biased against this editor, your past history and your actions may be seen as such - something you should have avoided by allowing the community to make that decision. There was no need for any rush in blocking ikip and thus there was none for you to do it. Regards SoWhy 10:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I want to avoid making this into a whole ARS versus the world mess. I still believe in the basic good work of WP:ARS. I don't want blocking Ikip to be used by anyone as "This is an example of the disruption WP:ARS is causing!" nor do I want to see unblocking him used as vindication of misuse of that project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The point is not what you want but how people will react. You have to admit that you were involved with this editor in the past and that you occupy a philosophy on the other end of the spectrum. Both is not forbidden but both will definitely lead to such associations, whether you like it or not. The point is this: If you know about those things and there is no real need for a block to stop current disruption, you should always bring it here before blocking, not afterwards. Even the (unfounded) suspicion that an admin might use his/her tools to sanction an editor who they have difficulties with is very damaging for the trust the community has for their admins. Again, noone is saying you did it because of that but some comments below (like Cameron Scott's) prove that this is definitely how some people will view this and you should have considered this before taking action against ikip. Regards SoWhy 15:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

AMIB's issue seems to be with the following diffs [10] [11] [12]. But these were postings related article talk pages, which are acceptable and in fact encouraged by AfD guidelines. Quote: "Place a notification on significant pages that link to your nomination, to enable those with related knowledge to participate in the debate." The notifications were neutral, and could have been picked up by editors wanting to help merge just as much as !vote keep. Ikip also informed users on the AfD of his notices [13] as encouraged by guidelines. It seems abundantly clear to me that Ikip should not have been blocked, and certainly not unilaterally by AMIB. the wub "?!" 10:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I support the block for the reasons given by AMIB. Verbal chat 11:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No real comment about this particular block (no time to look into it), but I had email about Ikip and canvassing this morning as well as seeing this on my watchlist. Which is just to say that there is at least one other situation going on right now where he's been accused of inappropriately canvassing. This might be worth having a peek at as well, at least according to one of the people who have contacted me with concern about this issue. --SB_Johnny | talk 11:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

What if the nominator did not inform anybody of the AfD discussion? It is suggested in WP:BEFORE / WP:AFDHOWTO to contact other editors or projects. Can someone be blocked for doing what the nominator should have done as part of the nomination? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 12:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support block for inappropriate canvassing, per original arguments and additional citations given. I see someone brought up the "deletionist" bullshit already; so early! seicer | talk | contribs 13:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support the block since some seem to be trying to divert the attention to AMIB's role in the action rather than why it was done. David D. (Talk) 13:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose, so long as we're !voting. 1) WP:AFDHOWTO explicitly states "Do not message editors about AfD nominations because they support your view on the topic. This can be seen as votestacking. See Wikipedia:Canvassing for guidelines. But if you are proposing deletion of an article, you can send a friendly notice to those who contributed significantly to it and therefore might disagree with you.". The ONLY diffs I've yet to see cited, [14] [15] [16] (it seems the blocking admin either cannot or will not provide any of his/her own) consist entirely of "FYI" and a sig. Seems perfectly in-line with stated policy. I also note, with some interest, that there is no block notice on Ikip's page. Is AMIB ashamed of letting non-cabal members of his actions here for some reason...? Snarfies (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
    I was the one who brought this to a wider noticeboard for review. Give me a break. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Does anybody know already why Ikip has been blocked? Not that it would change anything, but at least it would light up things a bit... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 13:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

My main objection is that AMiB has used admin tools in a dispute where he has been an involved party. See Wikipedia:UNINVOLVED#UNINVOLVED - this is not good. AMiB, how do you define that you are an uninvolved admin in this situation? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

How am I involved? I've outlined a pattern of problematic behavior, each time ending up in a general warning to Not Do This Again. To my knowledge Ikip hasn't canvassed any discussion I've had a large part of except WP:FICT, where he was canvassing editors who agreed with me that it was a bad idea.
The only involvement I have with Ikip that wasn't chiefly in agreement with him is saying "Stop canvassing, dude" and being attacked for it. The idea that attacking an admin who warns you to stop doing something disruptive "involves" them to the degree that they cannot act to stop you from persisting in that disruptive conduct is baffling to me. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I think Casliber has an obligation to define exactly how he believes A Man In Black is an involved admin. Certainly it wouldn't be reasonable to argue that admins are only permitted to act against editors that share their personal philosophy about exclusionism/inclusionism. I'm not a big fan of this particular block, as I've shared on AMIB's talk page. Not being a fan of this block doesn't mean I think that AMIB has violated WP:INVOLVED, though.—Kww(talk) 14:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This diff merits discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems the definition of whether people think you are involved or not depends on whether they agree with you. AMIB actions were correct, this is gaming and canvassing and should be stopped. This whole involved/univolved thing is tedious. AMIB brought it here for discussion, so attacks against him should stop. Verbal chat 14:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • AMIB failed to provide evidence supporting the block. Editors should not have to guess. If AMIB doesn't have time to to a block properly, AMIB shouldn't do it.
  • The notices we guessed were the basis were proper, allowed, or even encouraged. Ikip was not violating WP:CANVASS.
  • AMIB was acting outside community consensus here, and that some editors seem eager to support this block goes to show....
  • Because concerns were raised about action while involved, AMIB should have immediately recused, allowing any other admin to unblock, if AMIB wasn't willing to unblock directly.
  • Because there is clearly no consensus for block, and blocks should represent consensus, and because there has been adequate discussion here to make this clear, User:Ikip should be immediately unblocked by any neutral admin who comes across this discussion. --Abd (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
    On the fourth point, isn't that what coming here for review means? I don't much interact with the bureaucracy of blocking. If I need to say so outright, then any admin can reverse my administrative actions if they feel that they are improper. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, AMIB, that makes it very clear, and could avoid further disruption. --Abd (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • As for reversing it myself, I'm torn; the opposition is "This was not a good reason to block," the support is "Despite that this user is obnoxious and this just happens to be on the inside of the technical line." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
    • You have no obligation to unblock, unless you conclude that the block was in error. Let me suggest that it was, because the actions Ikip took that you considered canvassing were actions that are routinely accepted as proper or even desirable, even if the effect might be some differential participation at the AfD. He wasn't just "on the inside of the technical line," he was doing what is allowed or even suggested. If you unblock, this resolves this whole disruptive dispute, in one stroke. Hence it would be laudable. --Abd (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I've looked at the diff's and I don't see what's the problem with Ikip's notifications. The notices were neutral in content and at related talk pages. Canvassing is allowed and "votestacking" seems to be thrown around a lot without any evidence. Like Casliber, I'm troubled that the admin my not be completely uninvolved in these articles. With that kind of power, AMIB should have deferred to another neutral admin for review or at least solicited comment before taking unilateral action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattnad (talkcontribs) 14:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Improper due to the previous involvement of User:A Man In Black who has been stirring up trouble about this for days now. There was no breach of WP:CANVASS and a block is not an appropriate response in any case as blocks are not supposed to be punitive. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
    I've criticized Banjeboi for proposing the modification of a template to solicit people directly to a deletion discussion when it was originally intended for something else. I don't recall Ikip even being involved in that discussion.
    If you mean questioning whether Ikip's canvassing of various discussions strictly to favorable audiences is a good idea, well, you caught me. Damn me for asking for input first. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • As an utterly neutral and uninvolved party, I am very troubled by the way this discussion is going about, which is more like a witch-hunt than anything else. I would like to review the unblock and cannot support an unblock until things calm down so that the evidence can be reviewed properly. If you make a claim that an admin is involved, you need to provide diffs first - asking the admin to prove how he is uninvolved first is absolutely unreasonable. Interim support. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The possible problem with involvement has been resolved by AMIB through his explicit recusal, so it is moot, leaving only the issue with the block itself. NCMV, your comment criticized the "witch-hunt" against AMIB, but then supported (interim) the block without giving a reason. Given that the stated reason for the block was defective, as there was no canvassing, but only quite proper, even desirable neutral notice to articles under AfD, I'd think you could agree that unblocking is appropriate now. --Abd (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
In striking my vote, I neither endorse or oppose the unblock as I am still asking questions to both administrators to satisfy my concerns over how this was handled broadly; this includes questions over the initial block. But this does not detract from you inappropriately closing this in the absence of allowing discussion of the subsequent unblock; I note that the unblocking admin appropriately reverted your closing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support block It's just part of a pattern of behaviour by members of the Article Canvassing Squadron - look at the recent discussion at the project page, it's a political focused inclusionist activist group and should be closed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
    This is not the kind of support I am looking for. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
    Yes and? You must have mistaken me for some form of robot or drone. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
    Then let me clarify. This accusation has nothing to do with why I blocked Ikip, and I would not want to see him blocked based on this accusation, which I believe is false. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to support what Ncmvocalist has said. We should review the block, not who made the block. A decision is either right or wrong, it does not change depending on who made it. Chillum 14:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  • AMIB is an involved admin deep in the inclusionist/deletionist wars, and involved admins are explicitly forbidden from using their tools. AMIB at this point has no more standing to use his tools to process AFDs, or anything related to them. He needs to respect that, or the next time he's probably on a short train to RFC and then Arbcom. rootology (C)(T) 14:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
    Exceptional claims require exceptional justification. Either take this to the arbcom to have my admin bit removed over this, or strike it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, we are reviewing the block, not the admin. Either the block was correct or incorrect, who made it is not going to change that. I will not accept the idea that the same decision can be correct when one person makes it and incorrect when another makes it. Either it is a correct decision or it is not. Chillum 14:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hear hear. I agree. Re the ARS: If there are problems with the ARS (and there may be, or with a subset) then that is a separate matter and should be brought up elsewhere. Verbal chat 14:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Up to now we still don't know the reason for the block. We're still guessing. Therefore we can't discuss the block. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 14:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
    Kay, I will elaborate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ikip has made a practice of pushing the limits of WP:CANVASSING. At every opportunity, he advertises any contentious discussion with which he is involved to any sympathetic party (most infamously here, advertising an otherwise-neutral project on hundreds of article talk pages of people with "inclusionist" userboxes), not respecting any requests that he desist save when they are enforced, and following only the letter of the rules. When anyone calls him on this, he goes on the attack, describing them as deletionists or devoted to destroying article content. However, he's aware that soliciting only those who agree with him is wrong (criticizing Ryan4314 for it here), but continues to walk the line any way he can.

I blocked him because I do not feel that Ikip will respect any sanction that is not enforced. I respect that the reason I blocked him in this case may have been within the letter of the rules; the wording of the rules shifts often enough that I'm not always 100% up to date. Nevertheless, I feel that this is a pattern of disruptive behavior that needs addressing.

Diffs forthcoming. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  • What diffs? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ikip
  • That's all we need. How long ago was this blockable canvassing? Also, read my note to Chillum. You as an admin have zero standing or authority to levy this block as one of the deepest "deletionist" partisans on this site, just as anyone deeply involved in the squadron would have zero standing or authority to undo it. You must undo this block and not do such a thing again, or you will not be long for your tools once the Arbitration Committee sees what you're about. All that aside, blocks are preventative. Note: that's preventative for Wikipedia's protection, not your political inclinations. You pretty much missed the goal as far right as you can on this one, for being involved. rootology (C)(T) 14:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
    Edit conflicting with me trying to edit them in isn't gonna get them here any faster. Also, I'm adding diffs for my assertions; are you? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Unblock. There is hardly ANY canvassing here, and cross-posting a note that is just the AFD itself plus the text "FYI" to a tiny handful of talk pages is not canvassing or disruptive to the AFD process, which already has too few people looking at it. I would unblock myself, but I don't think I'm a totally uninvolved editor in regards to Ikip. In regards to inclusionism/deletionism, I'm 100% uninvolved (just look at how many AFDs I've begun and I believe I'm about 66% delete, the last time I looked at the stats). rootology (C)(T) 14:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The more I think about it, I am uninvolved with this editor. We just used to chat back in 2006, and then he literally leaped down my throat and went off on me, on the worst terms imaginable with zero faith in me back then, and then basically said "Welcome back, congratulations," last year. Based on the zero evidence preceeding the block (involvement aside, we do NOT block for long-past or even days-past actions) in Ikip's contributions, I have unblocked. Any uninvolved admin may reblock that's not one of these people in the fights if required. rootology (C)(T) 14:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I think you need to carefully justify the accusations you have made against AMIB. Being an exclusionist doesn't render him impotent when dealing with inclusionist editors, just as being an inclusionist doesn't render one impotent when dealing with exclusionists. If you believe that AMIB is so deeply involved with Ikip that his behaviour is skirting with Arbcom sanctions, I suggest that you provide evidence to support that belief.—Kww(talk) 15:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support block - we give far, far too much leeway to those who game the system, and should look particularly dimly upon those who have been warned multiple times before to stop doing it. We should also look extremely dimly upon those who show up to these sorts of discussions only to throw around ad hominem 'deletionist' or 'inclusionist' insults--for make no mistake, when one editor calls another either of those things, it is almost always intended as an insult. //roux   15:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose block 3 friendly neutral notices, placed exactly where and how they are supposed to be as per guideline, do not constitute canvassing. Had there neen 20 notices, there might be a case. But 3?? No consensus over the 3 edits was asked for or reached. Due process was not followed. Pique over perceptions of past edits or edit history do not justify lack of process in this one instance. Although Ikip might have pushed the guidelines a bit in the past, in this case he did no such thing... only upset an editor who does not agree with his editing style. Bad form. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Rationale for my unblock[edit]

1st:

  • Ikib blocked by AMiB on 10:18, April 26, 2009. AMiB for starters has no authority or right to block for anything related to the Article Rescue Squad, Deletionism, or Inclusionism, or anything like that, barring vandalism, as one of the major players on the "Deletionist" side. This would be like User:DGG or another user widely perceived to be on the 'other' side doing likewise. We don't allow politics in the use of admin tools, and I encourage AMiB to never do this sort of thing again, as it's a short road to RFAR and losing his bit.

2nd:

  1. Wikipedia space: Nothing for 72+ hours.
  2. Article talk: Nothing for 72+ hours.
  3. User talk by Ikip: Nothing for 72+ hours.
  4. Wikipedia talk by Ikip: Nothing for 72+ hours.

Again, any demonstratably uninvolved admin can freely reverse my unblock, I waive all wheel warriness, etc rootology (C)(T) 15:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you didn't address any of my comments to Casliber on this subject while still accusing me of being involved, but I respect unblocking due to a lack of a pressing issue to prevent. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The first part of your argument is a real stretch, and it's part of the reason why disruptive inclusionists and exclusionists seem to operate under a protective shield. Admins on the same side aren't inclined to block, admins on the opposite side use an extreme interpretation of WP:INVOLVED to justify inaction, and admins uninvolved in the issue at all are so tired of the mess that they don't poke their nose into it. AMIB has not participated in the discussion in question, and seems not to be involved with Ikip except for repeated warnings about canvassing and near-canvassing. Your second argument is that after having been warned by an admin multiple times about behaviour, the editor does it again, and the admin didn't catch it fast enough? I think arguments against the block based on Ikip not having technically violated the canvassing rules warrant discussion, and I can respect those. Arguing that no exclusionist can ever block an inclusionist or vice versa means that we might as well give up and split the project in two.—Kww(talk) 15:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Not at all--just report the issues here, and the uninvolved folks can sort it out. The same as anything else. :) rootology (C)(T) 15:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Nice theory ... in practice, they just turn into squabbles that people tune out, like this one: giant squabblefests with one group of admins afraid to act, another group uninclined to act, and everyone so eager to blame it on inclusionism/exclusionism that they don't evaluate the situation and judge whether the underlying behaviour of either party warrants action.—Kww(talk) 15:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
It wouldn't be the first time I've been accused of being overly idealistic. rootology (C)(T) 15:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Probably 90% of active admin are uninvolved in fiction, and at least half do other things than participate in deletion/inclusion debates at all. But they're willing to help out in other areas as neutrals, just as I ewill comment here on things i don't otherwise actively work on. I don't primarily hunt down vandals or copyvio or BLP violations (unless I happen to come across them) but if there's a dispute about it, I can look. That's what this board is for. DGG (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
But that's not what happens on this board. Hell, we are on AN/I right now and look what is happening. Admins and editors are sorting neatly into groups based on their preferences and those without preferences are either ignoring the issue or clucking their tongues at what a shame it is to have disputes like this. At what point are we allowed to just say that treating wikipedia like a battleground is OK as long as your area of advocacy is notability of fictional subjects? Because that's what it looks like from here. Protonk (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
No accusation was made, Root. He just said that in practice the model doesn't work. Most of the cases do tend to fall right along the lines that Kww mentioned. Protonk (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I see no reason to re-impose this block, so endorse. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

'Nuff said[edit]

I don't think A Man In Black blocked for political reasons or out of bad faith, but perhaps he should have sought community opinion before the fact, rather than after the fact. I don't think Rootology should have been the one to do the unblocking since he is to some extent involved, but I don't think he unblocked in bad faith either.

FWIW, I would have unblocked if Ikip had requested unblocking via template. The fact that he didn't is rather odd, but that's neither here nor there. Both admins involved here were a bit quick to hit the buttons, but I don't see any reason to think that either were being quick out of malice or without a belief that they were taking correct action. --SB_Johnny | talk 16:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Pattern of problematic adminship?[edit]

This is not the first time A Man In Black has blocked someone with whom he was involved and which garnered the community's scrutiny. See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive489#Review_of_A_Man_In_Black.27s_block_of_Jtrainor. Given this admin's extensive block log for edit warring as well, I strongly urge the community to consider to what extent adminship has been abused by this editor when dealing with opponents per WP:INVOLVED. After all, don't we as a community occasionally consider desysopping after two bad blocks? We have at least two questionable blocks as well as a long history of edit warring. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. A block that ended a long-running case of brinksmanship over copyright is a clear example of a a pattern of inappropriate blocks. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I've seen nothign wrong with AMiB's actions as an admin, and I've been on the wrong side of it before. Knock it off. One dubious block in which the major opposition is a direct attack on AMiB's 'wikipolitics' is hardly anything, and another lbock which was reviewed is also not enough. ThuranX (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
No, desysopping is only handled by Jimbo Wales and Arbcom, and if the administrator elects it, WP:RECALL (which AMiB does not), so either User talk:Jimbo Wales or WP:RFAR. MBisanz talk 17:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
AMIB has a history of edit warring, and then blocking people to get his way. I can't say I'm terribly surprised he would misuse his tools in other venues as well. Jtrainor (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Jtrainor was invited to rehash his six-month-old dispute over copyright with me by Ikip here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Which is irrelevant, as I regularly browse and comment on WP:ANI (as my contrib history will show) and thus would've noticed this eventually anyways. Ikip just sped the process up a bit. Jtrainor (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
No. Ikip leaving a note regarding this ANI post on the talk page of an editor favorable to his particular position isn't relevant at all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Having likewise been blocked over opinions of content issues during a dispute, I likewise believe that A Man In Black has gone above and beyond his station in certain instances. Perhaps not material for an RFAR, but nevertheless Jtrainor should not be singled out as a unique "problematic" case - this has happened before and to other people. MalikCarr (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
For example, MalikCarr, at the same time and for the same cause as Jtrainor, also here rehashing that same six-month-old dispute. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Ikip didn't leave a note on Malik's page, however. Anyways, saying "it's old" is irrelevant when one is attempting to display a pattern of inappropriate behaviour. Jtrainor (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
In addition to involved or at least questionable blocks of Jtrainor, MalikCarr, and Ikip, at least one other has come under scrutiny as seen at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive475#Edit_War_at_Now_Museum.2C_Now_You_Don.27t_.26_Request_for_review_of_actions. The revert warring mentioned there has actually occurred on SIX articles and not just the one discussed at ANI (I am surprised that hadn't been brought up yet at ANI): [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], and [22]. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The only problem I see here is a bunch of editors with a vendetta. Such witch hunts look worse for the hunters than the so called witches. David D. (Talk) 22:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Care to provide some evidence for that claim? Protonk (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • When fully half of your entire edits to Wikipedia have been reverting content disputes with an admin, and three-quarters of your blocks from that same admin, you tend to take on a rather jaded perspective to the whole project. Incidentally, he's not referring to a dispute six months ago, but rather to a dispute that lasted six months, went through RFC and ARB, and still didn't really produce any firm conclusions. I'd argue that the recourse from that isn't a vendetta, rather simply seeking returns on great inequities. MalikCarr (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Self evident? Are you joking? No really, please provide some evidence for your sweeping claims. Protonk (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Read the whole thread here. A request for block review is brought here. It is was undone. There was no argument other than an agree to disagree conclusion. That should have been the end of the discussion but the whole thread goes off on mulitple tangents. Focus on the the big picture and keep content dispute to the article talk pages. David D. (Talk) 22:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I have read the whole thread. I don't see how this condenses to a content dispute and I don't see how going off on "tangents" offers evidence for your accusation that editors/admins here have been motivated by a vendetta. Perhaps you'd like to retract that accusation. Protonk (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Is the word vendetta your only problem? How about grudge? You really think this whole thread is only about the block in question? David D. (Talk) 23:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • My main problem is the fact that editors are intent on abandoning AGF without any great cause to do so. I would hope that if you think AMiB is acting on a vendetta that you provide some evidence--evidence beyond the fact that he has brought Ikip's conduct here before and beyond vague hints at wikistance. I'm also well aware that this thread isn't just about the block in question. That's part of the problem. Protonk (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually I'm still waiting for the diffs that resulted in the block of Ikip in the first place. Did AMiB already provide them? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 23:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Man, I need a scorecard or something, this thread is turning into allusions to implications to veiled accusations of implied misdoing... - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Man, you need to just shut your damn yap and stop replying to every accusation :-). Just sayin. --SB_Johnny | talk 23:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

A question[edit]

To get things straight, is there now some sort of more expansive standard for involvement that I don't see in WP:UNINVOLVED applied to admins on one side or the other of a wikistance dispute--or more accurately, admins who have been characterized by third parties as being on one side or the other? Because if there is it better be written in policy that has some community consensus and if there isn't we better stop reversing blocks without speaking to the blocking administrator on the basis of this imagined new "recusal" framework.

More to the point, when we find this new raft of administrators who are neutral in every respect on every issue and who also have an interest in wading into these periodic shitstorms, please let me know. Protonk (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

first step is to ask here, not assume there isn't anybody. DGG (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
There is noone who is neutral on every issue but that's not needed anyway. You just need an admin who is neutral on the issue at hand and there are plenty of those. As DGG says, ask here before assuming that there is noone. Regards SoWhy 19:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
If I could speak for Protonk, I think his point was that if the standard for being uninvolved comes down to whether the community views you as inclusionist or deletionist, we're in for trouble. Does the community see me as inclusionist or deletionist? I have no idea, nor do I really care. Could you find three editors who see me as deletionist? You bet -- I could probably even give you a list. Could you find three who see me as an inclusionist? Yes, absolutely. But if that means I could never block an editor over misbehavior at AfD, then I doubt you'll find any admin who could.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not being clear. I understand that help can and should be found on the admin boards. I'm just wondering why this apparent new standard for neutrality isn't written in policy anywhere. Protonk (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
(just woke up - need coffee but this important) There is no new standard here. We have a policiy on uninvolved and AMiB is way involved as a common player in the trenches at AfD on the opposing side to Ikip. This is patently obvious. Also it is especially important in greyer areas like the neutral wording of three notes to other uses. Rootology summed it up well above after I went to sleep last night. This is in no way a borderline case. Can you imagine if I blocked a deletionist for incivility? People would (rightly) point out my nonimpartial position. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
You're an inclusionist? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Damn straight. yep. Unless on misinformation, then no. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Cool. Do you send me the membership of the mailing list, then, so I know who I'm too involved to censure?
I generally leave such labeling nonsense to the people who actually care about it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops)
In any event. WP:UNINVOLVED is about keeping administrators from using the tools to gain the upper hand in a dispute, I thought. I'm not actually in dispute with Ikip over anything, except that his conduct is inappropriate. I don't think I could honestly say that I agree with him on all points, or that I intend to go out drinking with him, but no block I could possibly make (save possibly an indefinite one) would ever silence his advocacy for article inclusion, nor would I want it to, nor would I meaningfully benefit from it.
If you genuinely thought that someone was being uncivil, then yeah, block them, be they deletionist, Republican, or Modovian separatist. Now, if you suspect that your evaluation is tainted by your personal feelings, sure, don't act, but administrators are trusted to use their judgement to evaluate a situation dispassionately.
Aren't they? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
But unfortunately an admin's judgment of being impartial can differ from what other users will see in a situation. As Casliber pointed out, this is probably not anything about deletionists vs. inclusionists but about your contributions which include a track record of debates on the opposite side to ikip. If any deletionist had made the block, I doubt we would have most of this discussion, it's just what happens if someone makes an administrative decision when they previously were in a content dispute with the same user. As a rule, I think admins should avoid taking administrative action against users who they were previously involved in a content discussion, even if they are not involved in the dispute which was reason for the action at hand. It would help avoid such accusations, at least a bit. Regards SoWhy 20:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Um, yeah. AMiB and dispassionate. I certainly wouldn't have thought of that adjective in describing some of your exchanges. OK, you weren't on opposite sides in this particular AfD, but there have been many of these exchanges - I have had them with you myself there. "I don't think I could honestly say that I agree with him on all points" is rather an understatement don't you think? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
That's nice that you picked on that aside, but you still haven't ascribed to me an ulterior motive that makes sense. Posit that I'm a complete blackguard, willing to do whatever I can to accomplish...something. It can't be to shut Ikip up, because he's going to be back in two days to argue to keep articles, just like before. It can't be to make him less convicted to prevent articles from deletion, because any persecution will only galvanize him. It can't be to strike some greater blow against article inclusion, since a fair few passionate self-declared inclusionists keep Ikip at arm's length. So whatever it is Villainous AMIB is out to do, he's doing it pretty badly by blocking Ikip and coming to ANI for review.
I'm not so much offended by the accusation of bad faith (I'm not so naïve as to expect that in a sufficiently large group that nobody will see evidence of bad faith) so much as I'm offended by the implicit accusation that I'm a villain and I suck at it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Your words not mine (re 'villain'). You are the one who has had some heated exchanges at AfD and has argued to delete in many. I am pointing out that you shouldn't use admin tools in AfD debates with someone on the opposite side. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The whole uninvolved admin bit is to keep admins from using the tools to gain some sort of advantage. The advantage I gain by blocking Ikip is... - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
...temporarily silencing someone of an opposing viewpoint whom you once proposed User:A Man In Black/Let's tape Ikip up in a box and mail him to the moon. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Silencing him from where? (And that was a joke about the silliness of citing clearly ridiculous proposals and essays. Clearly, "Note to self: Buy more stamps" was part of my plan to silence opposition.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Wait a second. So I'm trying to silence my opposition, based on a three-month-old, now-closed RFC where Ikip agreed with me? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Fabric hits the nail on the head. The problem with this nebulous, untwritten standard for involvement is that anyone can declare someone too partisan to render a decision. this isn't as simple as (as AMiB puts it) determining whether or not an admin has given him or herself the upper hand in a dispute with the tools. we are inventing some "meta-dispute" between "inclusionists" and "deletionists" whereby any admin who has expressed an opinion about content in any fashion can be ginned up to be party to this "meta-dispute". After someone has announced that said admin is party to the dispute, who are we to argue with them? AMiB has voted to delete things in the past and has (Gasp!) pulled the trigger and deleted things. But in the absence of some actual meta-dispute (note the lack of scare quotes) we have to be convinced that AMiB is so tainted by his prejudice that he will use the tools inappropriately.

so what is it? Is there some dispute on wikipedia that I am party to, despite not having voted in or closed and AfD for months? Where do I fit on the scale? who am I not allowed to block based on their stance? Because I want to know. apparently it is some community standard, long held, that I'm ignorant of. So clue me in. Protonk (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am convinced AMiBs participation here was wrong and gives the strong appearance of prejudice (regardless of motive). Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll leave aside sundry issues with that declaration and press on my key point. Who may take action? I note that you haven't pressed particularly hard to state that Ikip was on the straight and narrow. Presuming that he wasn't, who is allowed to block? Who is allowed to block and ask for review (as AMiB did here)? Who is allowed to block only after seeking review? Where is all of this written? Protonk (talk) 23:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, my opinion on the action (neutrally worded notes on 3 editor's pages), is that it was in a grey area. I note that alot of deleters will spend more time at AfD than alot of content editors and keepers, but that is a bigger-picture thing. Bakc to process - if I saw an editor which whom I was concerned there might be the perception of me being non-impartial, then I would ask here whether other admins thought it block-worthy. This happens fairly regularly here. If an action is genuinely blockable, other admins will concur and might do it themselves or give me the green light to do so. If it was an absolute no-brainer, eg editor is revelaed to be sock of banned editor, it is not such a big a deal as these grey areas above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
"I note that alot of deleters will spend more time at AfD than alot of content editors and keepers, but that is a bigger-picture thing."strikes me as unrelated, but ok. Where is this standard for admin action written down? where, if I were just learning how to be an admin, would I look for guidance on the subject? I just want to answer that. Here I'm deliberately avoiding discussing the presumption that a meta-debate constitutes an involvement just as an actual article debate would. I'll concede that for the sake of argument. Protonk (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it's fairly simple. Have you and I been in content and/or policy disputes and/or DR escalations vs each other? If so, you and I have zero business or right using the tools on each other. There's a reason we have a thousand admins. If one of has been naughty, any one of them similarly uninvolved can take action if required. That's my standard, and I think that of most people. rootology (C)(T) 01:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to be rude, but I think it is even simpler. We have a standard for admin involvement at WP:INVOLVED. If no one here can point to some policy suggesting that the standard is much higher then we don't get to act as though it is. I mean, I agree with you that the ideal state is the invervening admin be neutral in all respects. But I'm not going out on a limb when I say that community practice doesn't being to approach this state as we have applied it here. To pick on two people, Stifle and Fut Perf both have clear, announced views on non-free image use. They have been involved in RfCs, content discussions, deletion debates, deletion reviews and so forth. Under this standard you propose, they would be unable to close an image deletion debate or block someone for uploading copyrighted material. How is that workable? what happens when the only people interested in working the trenches have a POV on the subject? Protonk (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there will be borderline cases. This isn't borderline. I admit I'm surprised to see it, for I regard AMIB as one of the most level headed among the strong opponents of Ikip's position--AMIB and I have had useful discussions over the issues involved, on my talk p. and elsewhere. DGG (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that we should dredge up the fact that being a fooist doesn't say anything about behaviour (for example, DGG and Cas are really nice chaps despite the fact I disagree with them sometimes) and being a barist doesn't automatically make you involved. That said, as much as Ikip irritates me, this block was more punitive rather than preventative. As rootology pointed out, he was dormant for two days prior. Sceptre (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Personally, my heart is inclusionist and my head is deletionist, so I am always looking for processes that will help editors to create notable articles. As far as I can assess from my lurking, A Man In Black (talk · contribs) seems to have a mission at the "heart" level that's incompatible with modern views of adminship neutrality. His September 2005 RfA was very light touch compared with the ordeal by fire that today's candidates have to endure, and few of his 2005 supporters seem to be active nowadays. I would feel more comfortable if he went through RfA again, perhaps after a tranche of coaching from Casliber if he is willing. - Pointillist (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Pointillist might be on to something. Why not have admins go through the RfA process every couple years (kinda like an election for lack of a better term)...so the RfA isn't a one time only deal. I think that AMIB should go back through RfA and some coaching. - NeutralHomerTalk • April 27, 2009 @ 00:52
@Neutral, see Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Reconfirm_administrators. Unless AMiB submits to it, an ANI consensus could not force him to take a reconfirmation RfA just as it couldn't desysop him. All that can/should really be discussed here is the appropriateness of this block and whether it represents a pattern of nonconstructive behavior. If people believe strongly that it does and that action against him is required, then WP:RFAR is the place to go. Trying to push for outcomes that cannot happen here is a waste of time IMO. Oren0 (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
You can't force any admin to do a recall unless there is wide consensus to make recall mandatory for all admins. Good luck on that windwill... rootology (C)(T) 01:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
What Oren0 (talk · contribs) says is technically correct. However, editors' acceptance of admin actions is to some extent voluntary, and for the time being A Man In Black (talk · contribs) is discredited. Bear in mind that current RfA processes ask a lot of searching questions about dispute criteria, neutrality, self-abnegation etc., none of which A Man In Black had to respond to in 2005, so a period of coaching followed by voluntary RfA would help restore his lost credibility. - Pointillist (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Is this what prompted your strange refactoring of an innocuous comment? Protonk (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Uh, discredited is typically = desysopped, or confirmed bad socking, that sort of thing. I'm chalking this up to a momentary lapse and/or error, myself. Shit happens, we're human. rootology (C)(T) 01:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
"Shit Happens" I would normally agree with, but when "shit happens" over and over and over again and it only happens when it is people who disagree with AMIB, it isn't "shit happening" anymore and it is intentional....and something needs to be done. - NeutralHomerTalk • April 27, 2009 @ 01:49
Assume the presence of a belly-button. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ack, regular resysopping would be a massive timesink. Arbcom is the place for review of misuse of admin tools, and I suggest this has been the most underutilised piece in teh admin jigsaw puzzle in recent years. And yes I would recuse from arbitrating on folks I have been in conflict with or semblance of conflict. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I note that you have not responded to Protonk's point earlier. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Which is that? There is no new standard of neutrality. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Which is that you and root both claim that some standard of neutrality exists which isn't written in INVOLVED. Are we appealing to the spirit of the rules, or an interpretation of the spirit that constrains admin action? Are we appealing to a policy that neither me nor AMiB are aware of? Or, as I suspect, do we have heterogeneous feelings about admin neutrality? Perhaps that heterogeneity makes it hard for us to match our 'feel' for what involvement constitutes and the policy as written. So what is it? Your response makes clear that there isn't a new standard of neutrality, so I should at least know what present policy gives us the inspiration for your interpretation. Protonk (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Casliber, this, and Protonk's most recent response to you before that (above). Would you like me to reword it for you? Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I tried to close this damn thing way back up there, way above the top edge of my monitor, way above my roof, somewhere in the clouds. I consider Ikip a friend who might sometimes need a little reminder. As to AMIB, okay, suppose he was involved, let's try this inclusionist/deletionist T-shirt on for size, and he saw what he believed was canvassing. What does he do? Remember, canvassing can warp an AfD. I happen to think we should allow canvassing, totally (though not spamming), and then actually follow preponderance of the arguments, with a closing admin perhaps getting a tad irritated at having to wade through useless me-too arguments, which would then naturally stop, but that's not the consensus at the moment. So, given the consensus, canvassing can waste a lot of time, as an AfD gets shut down for damage from canvassing and restarted, just saw that happen a few days ago. It's an emergency, must stop immediately. So he blocks, but, wait, he's involved. Does he unblock? No, he goes to AN and reports what he did, which is exactly what someone with an involvement seeing an emergency should do. He should have immediately disclosed a possible involvement, but, apparently, he didn't think of it that way. He should possibly have recused immediately from opposing unblock, and, in fact, as soon as I commented that he ought to do this, because of the appearance of involvement, if nothing else, he did. AMIB's behavior here was quite proper, and the only error was, I believe, in viewing neutral notices on article Talk pages to be canvassing. And admins get to make mistakes; hopefully, they learn from them. 'Nuff said; where this discussion has raised other issues, they should be sectioned as such and discussed as such, or moved to an appropriate page where some conclusion might be made, or we end up with the bane of Wikipedia discussions: endless rant mixed with useful comment that is wasted because it goes nowhere. None of this should be viewed as disagreement with the myriad opinions expressed above. --Abd (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    This is to me an acceptable summary of what happened. I don't feel that I was involved in some larger meta-dispute with Ikip (I cannot see any personal gain I make by blocking him, and nobody was able to show one to me), but I brought it here in the interest of having greater input on my actions (which turned out to have been in error, due to changes in guidelines). As for recusal, where do I sign up for the "I know better than to wheel war guys, seriously" certification? I wouldn't reblock Ikip (or anyone, for that matter) without clear evidence of a compromised admin account or something. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Disagreement over narrow (acting to gain an advantage in a specific dispute) versus loose (disagreement on a broad topic or general antipathy) interpretation of WP:UNINVOLVED is not new. If I remember correctly, a narrow violation is actionable, while a loose one may receive a warning. Of course, editors are free to express their opinions in either case. Flatscan (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I have sat out of this argument for several days, in an effort to lessen the peity drama.
I have a definitive answer.
Arbitrators have continued to explain what an "Uninvolved admin" is:
"...an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict." [23]
Under this defintion, A Man In Black is a very involved editor. Although he did not participate in the AFD in question, he has been deeply involved in policy around deletion and Article Rescue Squadron, in which we have had several heated arguments.
A Man In Black continues to disengeniously claim that he is not involved with me. That is false, and I appreciate he retract this incredibly misleading statment. I can provide edit difference of all the arguments we have been involved in together, if necessary. Ikip (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I would say this is an ex-parrot. You've not convinced members of ArbCom that your standards of 'uninvolved' are reasonable.[24]The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
1) These "standards" ("...an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict.") are not the Ikip's ones: they have been written and subscribed by arbitrators
2) You didn't quote "the arbcom", you just quoted an arbitrator who seems to be saying that the definition given by the arbocm to the term "uninvolved" is "insane".
--Pokipsy76 (talk) 10:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
And obviously not everyone ascribes to Ikip's interpretation of that line. Ikip's way means any admin who has ever acted on a dispute is therefore involved, which includes anyone doing something as simple as blocking based on 3RR or closing a dispute discussion. Also, I never said "the ArbCom," I said "members of ArbCom" and provided an example. Somehow I knew someone would conflate that quote in just such a manner, but if I didn't quote anything I'd be chided for that too. Either way, this discussion isn't actually producing anything at this point. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
It's entirely posible that arbitrators think that "trivial" actions do not count as "partecipation" to the dispute, but you can't deduce this from the case you cited because there was nothing trivial in that case.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Notifications at related articles[edit]

I started a discussion at WT:Canvassing#AfD notifications at related articles. One may note that I used notifications that I posted as the example. Flatscan (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darko_Trifunovic[edit]

Dear all,

I have problem with article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darko_Trifunovic since it is clear violation of Wikipedia roles referring BLP and Vandalism. You can see history of the article and you can find that old article were move because of lies and nonsense. It looks like that again same individuals relating to Wikipedia are trying to repeat the same. So need help from someone.Darko 08:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darko Trifunovic (talkcontribs)

Reverting your addition of your resume isn't vandalism. All the material on the page is backed up by reliable sources. This is an editorial dispute between yourself and the other editors on the page. I see no need for administrator intervention. yandman 09:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
But since we're here, I see no OTRS # to confirm this identity in any case. Unless I'm missing something, we're working on blind faith? Franamax (talk) 09:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec) It's not a particularly good biographical article - focusing as it does on the report controversy unbalances its coverage to the point where it verges on WP:COATRACK, but the current content is sourced and neither should the article be a mere resume. Perhaps (bearing in mind our conflict of interest policy) you could work with the other editors on the talk-page to create a fuller, more rounded article? EyeSerenetalk 09:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a history of OTRS correspondence with the subject, so I feel it's relatively safe to assume the user making this report is also the subject, for what it's worth. Daniel (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Given the current state of the article I can understand the OP's concern, but other than a possible speedy (G10) I agree with Yandman that it's probably not a case for admin intervention. I've left a note on the article talk-page anyway (as a fellow editor); setting any other issues aside, it needs considerable expansion to get away from the coatrack impression. EyeSerenetalk 14:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>The article is not in anyway an attack page. I and several other editors have been working hard to clean up Mr. Trifunovic's concerns with the article and it's sourcing. Recently the article was stubbed and we are slowly building it back up with reliable sources. The problem here is that the subject's primary notability stems from his outspoken denial of the Srebrenica Genocide. That said, the fact that a subject's biography is primarily composed of negative but sourced information is not a valid reason for deletion. Please note that this is about the 5th ANI thread started regarding this article:

// Chris (complaints)(contribs) 17:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You have my sympathies and admiration - those are some of the hardest articles to write ;) It might be worth considering a name change if sourced bio information can't be found, but I agree that as it stands the article is not a deletion candidate (I mentioned G10 as the only admin action I could remotely imagine might apply, not because I actually believe it qualifies for deletion). EyeSerenetalk 20:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Mr Trifunovic has also appealed directly to me on my talkpage with much the same complaints, and I pointed them toward WP:Office to try to resolve any issues - from this thread it appears that either they did not pursue that option, or that they did but it failed to achieve the desired result. I think we have here a Srebrenica Genocide denial denier. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Dr Trifunovic and User:Resistk who is in the US but works with Trifunovic have both been forum-shopping this very actively. See Chris' list above.
The fundamental problem is that this person is not happy with being well known for the thing they're well known for. However, there's not a lot we can do about that. Their activities raised a lot of attention, press, etc.
BLP stands as a standard level - we try not to embarrass people who are alive, and need to be careful with those articles. But we also don't as a policy whitewash negative information. He would like to not be famous (imfamous?). We can't change that. We can treat that in a way that's consistent with BLP and notability, etc. And the forum shopping has resulted in a fair number of admins working together to review the article, which is currently much smaller and more benign than it was. But we also need to not let the article subject sweep stuff under the rug.
There's been extensive disruption and some sockpuppeting in play on this. The repeated forum shopping (six times now, inclusive of this, on ANI - plus OTRS, plus monthly blowups on the article talk page for the last year plus) has been tolerated so far in the interests of trying to give the article subject as much space as they need to defend negative claims in the article. However, at some point, even the tolerance for that runs out. Uninvolved admins should perhaps consider the long term patterns.
If the account is blocked, we should probably transclude a section of their talk page in to the article talk page, to let them continue to comment there, but i'm not sure that the wider editing capability has been helpful here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that's a very balanced response, and the situation is not something we can allow to go on indefinitely. I've blocked both Resistk and Trifunovic (for one and two weeks respectively) to give our good-faith editors a break from endlessly going round in circles on the talk-page. If the disruption continues when the blocks expire I'd support indef. If you want to transclude DT's talk-page I'll leave that up to you. Sanctions logged at WP:ARBMAC; as always, review welcome. EyeSerenetalk 08:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Block request for Wgreaseball2[edit]

Resolved: Yep, that's about right. Blocked indef. You can take these to WP:AIV in the future. Thanks. Wknight94 talk 03:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at his/her contribs. As far as I can see, it's a vandalism-only account whose user has been warned multiple times. C1k3 (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Quukreb[edit]

Resolved

Cannot edit own talk page now. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Tariq Nayfeh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) -> the apparent puppetmaster
TariqNayfehMD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
149.68.105.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
DeLaughterDO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Mtpisaman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Nuxaggle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Nuxxagle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Prdentiol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Vespearez251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Berquuk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Quukreb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Is a blocked sock allowed to delete the sockpuppet notice from his talk page? [25] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:Blanking it's ok. He/She is only removing the block notice and various warning templates. As long as the sockpuppet template remains on the user page everything's just fine. Icestorm815Talk 05:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
From WP:Blanking; Important exceptions may include declined unblock requests and confirmed sockpuppetry notices (while blocks are still in effect). He's still blocked, so why can he remove the confirmed sockpuppetry notice (or edit at all, considering the nature of his block)? Matty (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
An excellent point. This guy keeps producing new socks, but doesn't post unblock requests, all he does is delete messages from his talk page. So it would seem appropriate to disable the various socks' abilities to edit their talk pages. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
This is where the ignore part of WP:RBI comes in. Kevin (talk) 06:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Hard to ignore when he creates new ones every day. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Restored block notice; reblocked to revoke talkpage editing privs. We're done here for the moment. -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 07:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Stuartholme_School[edit]

Yes check.svg Resolved. Obvious vandal. C.U.T.K.D T | C 08:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

58.174.107.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is changing the names of Notable Alumni and making other additions to Stuartholme_School. The first couple of times, there was clear vandalism, but now I'm not so sure - some of the names being added may be genuine but there is no way of checking. I'm not going to continue reverting to avoid being sucked into an edit war. Can someone else take a look please? C.U.T.K.D T | C 07:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Harry Potter style vandalism has resumed, so I'm taking this to AIV next time it happens. C.U.T.K.D T | C 07:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours. Cirt (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Block User:CommonsDelinker - negative non-obvious bot powered contributions detrimental to the project.[edit]

Can someone block this stupid thing? This edit [26] was entirely counter-productive. Sure it removed the link to the deleted image on commons but spectacularly failed to notice there was a previous perfectly good image used before leaving the article with no image, and no redlink to the deleted image to alert a HUMAN editor to the problem so they could check the article history. The only reason it was picked up was I had visited the article recently and knew there was a perfectly good freely licensed image there at that point and went digging to see where it had gone.

This is a net NEGATIVE to the project - we shouldn't tolerate edits that degrade the encyclopedia from a bot account that doesn't conform to our naming conventions on bots, isn't mantained on the english wikipedia by anyone and requires running off to commons if there's a problem. Block immediately and permanently. Exxolon (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose and disagree with the evaluation. The deleted image is in copyvio, so the bot is doing its job properly. --Caspian blue 00:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
    • No it's NOT. It's making it harder to correct problems where a freely licensed image is replaced by a copyvio. That's then correctly deleted as one but this thing then deletes all references to the change to it so you end up with NO image and NO clue that there was ever one there. Exxolon (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
      • That's your thought and why don't you calm down? Bot is bot.--Caspian blue 00:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

An edit that fixes broken syntax is "entirely counter-productive"? The inability of a bot to detect the existence of a suitable alternative image is a "spectacular failure"? A broken page is a better notification of an image problem than an informative edit summary? Hesperian 01:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Damn straight. Check [27] - this is the version of the page the bot left - no image, no indication there ever was any image, no clues, no nothing. The redlink is better left unremoved - this can alert a HUMAN editor to a problem, they can then check the history and fix the issue. Exxolon (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Exxolon, I can understand your frustration, but I don't think there's much alternative. I don't even want to think about writing a bot that would search the history of an article looking for the last time there was a valid image. At the same time, we can't very well have red link images scattered about. Get mad at the person who put the bad image on the article in the first place, and get mad that not enough people are watching the article and familiar enough with it to know that images are available. Wknight94 talk 01:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with those above who find that this particular bot is doing nothing wrong. However, we have a bot that goes and "rescues" citations from previous versions of a page. How about either making a new bot, or adjusting this bot, to drop a note on the talk page if there was a commons or other still-available image removed from the page and reflected in its history, prior to the more recent copyvio removal? bd2412 T 01:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Redlinks to files are never helpful, as files typically have either cryptic or highly specific names which don't help anything. I see this as a case where the system worked. The bot made an edit removing a bad image link. You, a watchful editor, added a good image in place of its absence. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 01:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I've thought about it the first few times people asked for OrphanBot and ImageRemovalBot to restore old images, and there are just too many cases where it's the wrong thing to do (say, an album cover used as the lead image of a biography, or a generic image name where the original has been replaced by something else). It's better to have no image than to have the bot accidentally insert the wrong image. --Carnildo (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: this bot also produces some broken syntax on en-wiki. Recent example: [28]. Gimmetrow 01:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm going to ask a template guy, but I think that syntax breaking is the fault of the template not failing gracefully when no image is present. Protonk (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I was looking into it, and I think it may be a bug in ParserFunctions. There is simply no reason why that if clause should be invoked when the logo argument is blank. Hesperian 01:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
        • The problem is that the field contains the character U+200e, the left-to-right mark. Presumably it was inserted by someone's copy-paste when they inserted the image filename. The bot should be able to easily detect that the field after image removal consists only of that character and handle the situation, but to date the operator has not done so. Anomie 01:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
          • Anomie is correct as to the cause of that specific bug. The bot operator was informed months ago. Gimmetrow 01:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
          • Ah. Ok. Protonk (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Exxolon, I can understand your frustration.... Not me; I have no idea what you're carrying on about. Judging by your edit summary in response to that bot edit, I'd say you need to go have a lie down.[29] Hesperian 01:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

  • The bot removes deleted images. Often, however, an image that gets deleted replaced another image, and the bot doesn't restore that other image. The effect of the bot, in many cases, is to hide the removal of good images from articles. I think that's what Exxolon is frustrated about. Gimmetrow 01:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


I believe that this version after the bot edit is preferable to this version before. As a bot operator and member of the Bot Approvals Group, I do not believe that a bot can reliably determine whether an acceptable image was recently replaced with a version that was deleted from Commons. I'll go on record saying I'd approve this bot if it were up for approval today to do just what Exxolon is complaining about. On the other hand, the unrelated bug Gimmetrow mentions is legitimate, if relatively minor. – Quadell (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think the unrelated bug is legitimate. Templates should be able to handle empty parameters robustly. Strangely, both the implementation of this template and its documentation suggests that it can handle empty parameters. I think Gimmetrow may have found a ParserFunctions bug. Hesperian 01:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
It's not an empty parameter. There is an invisible unicode character (see above) in the field. Gimmetrow 01:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

So to sum up, for those following along at home: Exxolon's original complaint (removing redlinks) is not valid. Gimmetrow's secondary complaint (failing to remove invisible characters when removing images) is valid. It's a subtle bug, and no one holds it against the bot-op that he didn't catch it. However, he's been unresponsive in fixing it once it was brought to his attention, and that's a problem. – Quadell (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

...and per BD2412's comment, someone may want to request a bot that would attempt to rescue good images that were replaced by bad images. Wknight94 talk 02:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't this bot just leave a note on the article talk page to mention what it did? And, preferably, why the image was deleted? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

  • It could leave a note, I guess. Ask the bot operator on his talk page if he is willing to write and get approval for that change. As for why the image was deleted, who knows? It was commons, so I guess the history there would show a deletion decision or discussion. Protonk (talk) 07:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
It's probably a Bad Idea to have this account flagged as a bot. I agree that its work is generally necessary and improves the immediate appearance of articles, but it would be beneficial if we could actually see easily what it's doing and when it needs to be 'followed-up' on. This would address the legitimate complaint that it can constitute a subtle removal of images. Happymelon 09:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have strong objections to me archiving this section? Protonk (talk) 07:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Before you do so, would you run an ad for m:Free Image Search Tool and WikiProject Check Wikipedia's Template with Unicode control characters report? -- User:Docu 09:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I have contacted the bot operator at Commons:User talk:Siebrand#CommonsDelinker problems on the English Wikipedia.Quadell (talk)

  • This matter is why we have Village pump. Archiving is better to save everyone's time.--Caspian blue 13:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Addendum, for those following along at home: the bug has apparently been fixed. – Quadell (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks from anon editors[edit]

I've been receiving hate mails from IP editors regarding my contributions on showbiz-related articles; they're in Tagalog, but the usage of English and Tagalog profanities stuck me, as well as sexual and homosexual remarks against me and User:NrDg. The IPs in question are 121.97.203.166 and 210.4.58.35. His mention of Nrdg and me alludes to User:Gerald Gonzalez, a banned user. Blake Gripling (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Both IPs blocked for 1 week for personal attacks. EyeSerenetalk 12:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Eye of the Lion[edit]

Resolved: Indef'd

Eye of the Lion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

User's primary purpose seems to be attacking other editors. He also vandalized the AIV page, deleting this posting before an admin could evaluate it. I put it back there. Posting it here also, for whoever sees it first. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef for disruptive editing, but if anyone thinks that this is too harsh and sees signs of a potential productive editor emerging, feel free to reduce or remove the block. BencherliteTalk 23:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Given his comments post-block, I entirely agree. Rodhullandemu 00:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Unlike the user who was the subject of Lion's attacks, I hardly ever get threats of violence. Maybe my crocodile farm is the deterrent. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I could threaten you with a lead pipe if you like. Or would you consider that patronizing? HalfShadow 15:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The lead pipe with Miss Scarlett in the secret staircase. Who says I'm Clueless? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Get offa my lawn, y'damned kid! *shakes pipe menacingly* HalfShadow 16:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Not half as scary as Herbert from Family Guy running across your lawn ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

User:TruthIIPower[edit]

Resolved: Blocked as sockpuppet of Spotfixer. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

TruthIIPower (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
The user, whose first edit was a month ago, appears to be on a crusade of some kind, specifically to take ownership of abortion-related articles to remove any hint of what he considers to be "bias". That in itself may not be a bad thing, but his constant insults leveled at anyone he disagrees with are getting a tad irritating. It's also been implied that he's a sock [30] but no one has investigated that so far. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I should probably mention that this dishonest and insulting summary comes from a guy who's been adding bias to abortion articles so that they support his personal views. I've been working to keep articles in compliance with the neutrality requirement. If that's an "incident", then I'm glad to be guilty. As for incivility, I freely admit that I have been subject to plenty of it. Wouldn't it be great if you came into this with clean hands? TruthIIPower (talk) 04:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I have not actually made any edits to the article in question (Religion and abortion), and if I've ever edited another abortion article, it must have been a long time ago. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
See also WP:WQA#TruthIIPower and WP:WQA#TruthIIPower 2. Looie496 (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Washes hands extra long to make sure they're clean and free of infectious diseases. Was just reading those wikiquette alerts. It's not a good sign when two different WQAs get filed within an editor's first month, and to see this diff[31] after the second WQA had been open for three days is an indication that TruthIIPower isn't catching on. Nor is it edifying to read TruthIIPower's presupposition regarding third party responses to this thread:

To be frank, only if they're stupid and hasty. If they actually read carefully and think about what they're reading, it should be obvious that any apparent aggression on my part is a response to blatant abuse. TruthIIPower (talk) 04:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[32]

Well what I happen to see at User talk:TruthIIPower is Philosopher, Andrew c, GTBacchus, and Tznkai (all administrators) and several other experienced users politely explaining policies and site standards, and receiving hostile and dismissive replies. Toward the latter part of the talk page a couple of posters are beginning to lose patience. If anything is unusual here, it is that an user who has been involved in three formal dispute resolution requests in such a short time (here's the third) has not yet received a single formal block warning. Strongly recommend TruthIIPower review a relevant policy and bear in mind that Usenet standards of interaction are not welcome here. A preference for hot button religion and politics articles[33] necessitates more tact at this website no matter what viewpoint one happens to have; ideally one's personal stance on a subject should not even be detectable. Our site mission is to inform the public, not to sway its views. Whether right or wrong on the merits of a subject, editors whose interactions are consistently combative tend to get ejected from the discussion. Please take this to heart. DurovaCharge! 05:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed the link. It is, oddly enough, entirely accurate to call it ritual cannibalism. According to Catholicism, they are in some way eating the flesh of Jesus. If it is a breach of civility to state this fact, I suggest you ban me forever. TruthIIPower (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Accuracy and courtesy are separate concepts. I devoured portions of a dead animal corpse this evening for dinner, but polite society prefers to call it steak. ;) DurovaCharge! 06:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
If I were to bring up this ritual cannibalism thing for no good reason, then perhaps it would be out of place and therefore discourteous. However, I brought it up when it was entirely relevant, since the issue at hand was whether we can call a wafer a wafer. I'm sorry, but there's just no incivility in that quote, no matter how deeply you search for it. TruthIIPower (talk) 06:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(OD)Saying that Transubstantiation is equal to canibalism, and demanding that everyone else acknowledge your analogy as the truth is a bit much to ask for without discussion. I'd suggest you find a reliable source stating that before trying to add it. T2P, you seem bound and determined to make it impossible to side with you, even for people who would agree with you on the issues. Dayewalker (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If you google "transubstantiation cannibalism", you get 12,000 links. Among those links would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation, which brings up the topic and does not dismiss it as absurd. Clearly, this is not original research on my part, and if it's so horribly offensive then perhaps you need to immediately censor Transubstantiation. I repeat; there is no incivity in the statement I made. I know I'm supposed to admit to my sins and act contrite so you can forgive me and leave me alone, but I have an unhealthy amount of integrity, so this is not an option. 06:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthIIPower (talkcontribs)
Hmm, and do you see anything odd about the context of these conflicts? TruthIIPower (talk) 05:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we all do. Dayewalker (talk) 05:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Somehow, I'm not sure that we're talking about the same thing. TruthIIPower (talk) 05:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll drop a hint with a leading question: How do I treat people who treat me reasonably? How do I treat people who outright insult me? How do you account for the difference? Partial credit given, but only if you show your work. TruthIIPower (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
If you expect others to welcome your presence and relish the opportunity of collaborating with you, you might do well to make the prospect seem more inviting. I see and appreciate the fact you've made a number of good edits, but I also encourage you to bear in mind that at its core, Wikipedia is and will always be a cooperative endeavor. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Per Luna Santin. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Before you take the 'Universe vs me' stance, try to think if your own behaviour is not the root to this 'insult' problem you mention. To me (as an independent observer who has had nothing to do with editing the related articles or even in this discussion so far) it seems as if you are taking every comment addressed to you as an 'insult' and then respond aggressively. You have acted in this manner to even Durova, who has just tried to make things clear. Making sarcastic and heated comments is not going to help you and will not make anyone turn to your views. Chamal talk 06:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I