Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive556

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian influence operations in Estonia (2nd nomination)[edit]

Just heads up, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian influence operations in Estonia (2nd nomination) is starting to get nasty. Users are throwing phrases such as [1] "Estonian KGB", thinly veiled personal attacks and so forth. --Sander Säde 19:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, if I had a dollar for everytime that some editors referred to the FSB as the KGB, I'd be a multi-billionaire. 50 times over. KGB was the secret police, and Kapo is the Estonian equivalent of the FSB. Other than that, there is no personal attacks, there is no being nasty, but there is quite a bit of taking to task issues surrounding the article. No need to make a mountain out of a molehill here. --Russavia Dialogue 19:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
So, you are comparing a regular government agency with a repressive organ which was responsible for killing millions of innocent people - but it is okay, because some unnamed persons have used old name for an official successor of KGB? Oh, yeah, I see no problems whatsoever. --Sander Säde 05:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

strange vandalism[edit]

I just discovered some really strange vandalism in the userspace. It happened about two years ago, so it's not a major issue; rather a weird curiosity and a minor annoyance. I discovered it during a google search. Anyway, a user, using the login User:Somecreepyoldguy, copied the contents of my userpage and changed a couple of the userboxes to rather offensive and just simply stupid things. This was back on June 16, 2007. I'm not sure why s/he did this -- I went back into my own contribution history to figure out if I might have said something to tick this person off, but I couldn't find anything. And these are virtually the only edits made by this user (though it's probably more appropriate to just call them a vandal).

I already blanked out the page, but I was wondering if it is possible to just delete this user's account entirely as well as the page and it's entire page history? Thanks! Dr. Cash (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

 DoneI have deleted the page for you. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Dr. Cash (talk) 03:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

User: E Sanchez[edit]

Resolved: No admin action required.

This is either a user or admin, but Esanchez has made a public accusation on a discussion thread, which needs to be addressed or deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kewingk (talkcontribs) 05:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be referring to this edit, in which case it was perfectly fine. Noting single-purpose accounts on AfDs is normal. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

FAQ disruptions from one editor in multiple places[edit]

Just a heads up. An editor has been making unilateral, usually un-discussed, and often unconstructive changes to several FAQ documents on Wikipedia, as if every FAQ must conform to his opinion of what a FAQ should look like (specifically, all answers must be collapsible and all questions must be yes/no questions). The following users are evidently the same editor, based on substantially identical editing histories:

The FAQs for articles I monitor (e.g. Talk:Evolution/FAQ, Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, Talk:Sarah Palin/FAQ, Talk:Global warming/FAQ, and others) have not benefited from these changes, and have been reverted by me or other editors, only to have this editor come back and restore the unconstructive changes.

The disruptive activity includes the following behaviors:

  • Not editing from a consistent location, instead using multiple IP addresses and one established account
  • Coming to articles unfamiliar with the history and unilaterally forcing numerous FAQ documents into some fixed mold that fits the editor's personal view of what a FAQ should be
  • Modifying meanings of questions in forcing them into yes/no format
  • Removing content by merging distinct questions
  • Destroying internal anchors to questions
  • Changing questions to yes/no format so the answer text no longer make sense
  • Failure to justify or explain any of these changes on the talk pages of the associated articles

I and others have given warnings to this editor. I placed some vandal warning templates, although I don't think this good-faith disruption is really vandalism, more like misplaced enthusiasm. I escalated vandalism warnings up to level 4, after which the editor continued to revert back to his preferred version.

The editor hasn't technically violated 3RR, but the reversions combined from all FAQs affected probably do. I haven't checked.

All that said, I do believe this editor is acting in good faith, albeit being disruptive about it. He has created some FAQs from scratch, which is fine. There are other FAQs with which the article community (e.g. Talk:Intelligent design/FAQ) has so far not had a problem with the changes. I think this editor has good intentions, but cannot seem to accept when others disagree with his changes. =Axlq 06:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Huw4beynon[edit]

From its edit history, User:Huw4beynon appears to be essentially a vandalism-only account, with the possible (but unhelpful) exception of creating an article “Huw Beynon”. Additionally, the edit history of User:Chaliepenn looks rather like that of a sock-puppet of the same editor. —SlamDiego←T 03:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Update: [2]. The edit history of this IP number suggests that it is used by the very same editor. —SlamDiego←T 09:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Further Update: Chaliepenn has now vandalized my user page with a personal attack.SlamDiego←T 01:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Chaliepenn is making something of a habit of vandalizing my userpage. Further such: [3][4][5][6]. —SlamDiego←T 22:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
[7]SlamDiego←T 01:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
[8][9]SlamDiego←T 09:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The Chaliepenn account is now indefinitely blocked. (We'll see whether another sock-puppet appears in its place.) I still hope to see some discussion and perhaps action concerning the Huw4beynon account. —SlamDiego←T 09:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Repeated date format changing by User:TerraHikaru[edit]

Resolved: Report to WP:AIV after last warning breached. Nja247 08:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Requesting block for TerraHikaru (talk · contribs), who has repeatedly changed date formats and regional English spellings unnecessarily on a number of pages despite a full set of warnings to desist. Most recent edit. --DAJF (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You gave a last warning, thus if they do it again report to WP:AIV for a block. Nothing needs done here until the last warning is breached. Nja247 08:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

modifying AfDs after closure[edit]

Having an issue with an AfD and Dems on the move editing the closing template to point to the DRV he brought (AfD edit history). I've always been under the impression that, outside of perhaps needing to remove personal attacks or a courtesy blanking for BLP concerns, that the "Please do not modify it" tag means just that; no alterations, period. My last edit has a less-than-stellar tone, and I'd strike if I could. So, otherwise, input appreciated on if editing an AfD closure template to point to a specific DRV is acceptable. Tarc (talk) 16:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I blocked the editor in question for 24 hours for violating 3RR. There is a long and unwarranted history of edit warring here.--agr (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As an outsider, perhaps not having a full background, it looks like DOTM's edits were a helpful navigation aid. I'm not sure why it required being reverted in the first place. Was there a reason besides "the rules must be followed".--Cube lurker (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This user was one of the main contributors to the deleted article, a persistent voice opposing deletion during the AfD, and the initiator of the deletion review. The template that closes an AfD points to the main DRV page, I've never seen the template altered to point to a specific entry, and saw it as a somewhat disruptive method of calling attention to what he believes to be a wrongly decided deletion. For the record, I wasn't angling for a block, just a clarification on if this was proper or not. Tarc (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
{{Delrevafd}} was created for just this sort of situation. Where an AfD is currently under appeal, I don't see how linking to that appeal could ever be considered a malicious move. Why didn't anyone look for a compromise, here? If it's really that bad to edit the template, just pop a notice in above it. Seriously, who cares? Why are we blocking users for linking to ongoing discussion? – Luna Santin (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree the link in itself wasn't problematic, but the edit-warring over it was. In reviewing their first unblock request I spent some time going over their history; they have quite a record of tendentious editing and gaming 3RR, so I guess if it hadn't been this it would have been something else in the near future. However, with their unblock request declined twice, they've now apparently retired. EyeSerenetalk 19:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
[EC]I'm with Luna Santin. This is innane. The changes were a bit out of the norm, but not the least bit harmful. Reverting with "go be a vandal somewhere else, pls? Thanks." was out of line, Tarc...and came on Tarc's 4th revert. — Scientizzle 19:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think Tarc was perhaps fortunate to avoid a block; the edits to the template were not obvious vandalism. EyeSerenetalk 19:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I indicated that that last edit msg was out of line in the initial report here, but unlike normal edits that can be reverted or stricken on 2nd thought, what's done is done. And I didn't even consider blocking on anyone's part here, as this was spread out over 2 days. The 3 hrs should be long expired by now though. Tarc (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Based on this discussion, I've dialed back the block to 3 hours. My concern was the revert warring. At least Tarc eventually brought the matter here instead of continuing.--agr (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Three hours from when? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Since the complaining editor said he wasn't seeking a block and others expressed support for the disputed edit, I felt a shorter block would suffice as a message to change behavior, without overly discouraging an editor who seems to be trying to contribute. I went to the change block page and selected the lowest option from the drop down list, which was 3 hours. I thought that selection meant change from 24 to 3 hours. Sorry for the confusion, but I don't use these tools very often. --agr (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess the answer should have been yes, it is perfectly legitimate to add navigation to the closed AfD, but the proper way to do it is by adding {{Delrevafd}}. This block was completely unjustified. Dems on the move (talk) 04:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Compromised account[edit]

And now the user is indefinately blocked with talk page protection[10], because of a "compromised account", by User:Steve Smith, what is that about? --Reinoutr (talk) 07:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I can see nothing in the user contribs that would indicate a compromised account; Dems on the move's only post since the unblock is the one just above, and there's nothing in their deleted edits either. Steve Smith hasn't posted anything, so unless there's been off-wiki contact I'm at a loss to account for this block. Hopefully Steve can enlighten us, but on the current evidence I believe an unblock is in order. EyeSerenetalk 08:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I strongly suggest another admin at least lifts the preventing of Dems editing his own talk page, to allow the user to speak his mind in the absence of the blocking admin. In the absence of any additional evidence, this action by User:Steve Smith seems severely out of line. --Reinoutr (talk) 08:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Here here. He should be unblocked immediately. - ALLSTRecho wuz here 09:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I've unlocked Dems's talk-page, though perhaps we should wait to hear from Steve Smith before jumping to conclusions. EyeSerenetalk 09:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't wait too long. The goal here is to convince Dem's to change behavior and I think extending the block without an explanation is counterproductive.--agr (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Fair point. As a few editors have commented now and there seems to be consensus for it, I've unblocked Dems on the move. Note that this is purely in the interests of fairness to Dems based on current evidence, and not in any way prejudging the suitability of Steve's original block; until he's commented we can't know why he acted as he did. EyeSerenetalk 10:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Seems like the appropriate thing to do. Indefinitely blocking a user without explanation and then going offline is unacceptable under under most circumstances. --Reinoutr (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Sorry for joining the discussion late; I didn't realize that this block would be contentious. He posted his (correct) account password on his user page. In my books, that's a compromised account, and we indef-block compromised accounts. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 14:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ya, I would say if someone posts their correct password that the account is compromised regardless of who is using it. Good block. Chillum 15:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I've re-blocked, since I assume that with the explanation this is now non-contentious. As for the talk page, talk page posts from a compromised account don't do us much good, since we have no idea who's making them. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 15:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a reasonable explanation for the block. (I'm assuming the edit was deleted because I don't see it.) Was there a reason though for not leaving some sort of block message? Both on the first block and the reblock?--Cube lurker (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
OK Steve, thanks for the explanation and no arguments with your reblock. I saw an oversighted edit in the page history but all I recalled seeing prior to that was his 'retired' banner, so couldn't imagine what it might have been that would lead to the action you took. Makes sense now. A block note or something would be helpful next time though ;) Best, EyeSerenetalk 16:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that a block notice was necessary, given the circumstances (his edit summary is still visible to administrators; have a look and see if you think he'd have needed an explanation for why he was blocked). In hindsight, I obviously wish I'd been more thorough in my explanation in the block log, or posted a note on ANI, but you know what they say about hindsight. Cheers, Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
This is probably an unusual step, but I've taken control of the account, and will be more than willing to return control of it to Dems, should they be able to demonstrate to me that they are who they claim to be (bear in mind: checkuser). If I'm able to do so to my own satisfaction, would anyone mind if I released the block? Or, if my taking control of the account is deemed unwise, I can set the password back to its prior (compromised) state. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Thought it might be helpful to have a subsection for this, as things certainly took an odd tangent while I was off for a few days. Tarc (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I certainly don't think the password should go back to its previous compromised state; your actions seem perfectly reasonable to me, Luna. EyeSerenetalk 13:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Dispute between User:Alansohn and User:AdjustShift[edit]

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

Resolved: This is mostly a content dispute but there is/has been some low level edit warring, editors should be very wary of making any further reverts until some kind of consensus has been reached on the article talk page. Please keep in mind, there is nothing untowards about putting quotes in footnotes if they indeed support the text and help give the reader quick means for WP:V. However, this can be overdone and moreover, quotes can be mistakenly cite spanned towards an unecyclopedic, original outcome in the text or, when carried out of context, can easily mislead even an alert reader. Either way, this belongs on the article talk page for now. Edit warring (even if below the threshold of 3rr) should be reported to WP:AN3 or to a neutral admin. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

An edit war has been brewing at the article Thomas Henry Barry, where a group of editors have decided that quotations must be removed from footnotes. After a lengthy discussion at Talk:Thomas Henry Barry, there is no consensus for their removal, yet User:AdjustShift has been repeatedly making blind reverts to push his position. I have left repeated pleas to all involved to explain why this is unnecessary and to encourage an end to the edit war on the article's talk page. I had left a user talk page message on July 31 for both AdjustShift (see here) and User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (here). RAN has respected this request and has refrained from editing the article since the request was left on his talk page. Despite multiple pleas to end his pointless edit war, User:AdjustShift has jumped back in, making another blind revert to the article here), insisting that he and another editor WP:OWN the article (here), while acknowledging here that he has been involved in an edit war (and helpfully listing all of his blind reverts) but blaming the other party for being the problem. As an administrator, we need to expect the highest standards in dealing with such disputes, but AdjustShift appears to insist on perpetuating a needless edit war. Restoring the content before the blind revert, locking the article for a few weeks and imposing a brief block on User:AdjustShift, will help ensure that this violation of policy will not be perpetuated. 17:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansohn (talkcontribs)

This thread is not proper. Admin should review the talkpage discussion here. I've not engaged in any edit warring. This is a false accusation. AdjustShift (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I've never suggested that I own any article. The block log of Alansohn strongly indicates that he has a problem assuming good faith and he has a history of falesly accusing people. I'll bring more evidence. AdjustShift (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Below are my points:
  • A quick look at Alansohn's block log will indicate that he is a disruptive editor.[11] Now let me explain how this all started.
  • The bio of Thomas Henry Barry was created by Rlevse.[12] I expanded the bio and it qualified for DYK. The problem started when Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) started inserting quotes on the biography. Three people, Rlevse, JGHowes, and I opposed inserting the quotes. But, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) continued edit warring. From 26 July 2009 to 31 July 2009 Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has reverted five times.[13][14][15][16][17] From 28 July 2009 to 3 August 2009, I have reverted only three times.[18][19][20] So who is edit warring? I've never claimed that I own the bio; I'm willing to discuss with fellow editors. If there is a clear consensus to insert quotes, they can be inserted. Alansohn, because he supports Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s position, is accusing me of edit warring. This is nothing but an attempt to gain an upper hand in a content dispute.
  • Before Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) started inserting quotes, Alansohn did nothing to the biography, but after Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) started inserting quotes, Alansohn has been busy defending Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). In fact, Alansohn didn't even know that the bio of Thomas Henry Barry was started by Rlevse. Please read this comment of Alansohn. He wrote I thank you [me, AdjustShift] for creating the article, but I will remind you that when ...". He thought that the bio was created by me!
  • This is not the first time that Alansohn and User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) supported each other in content disputes. Alansohn and Richard Arthur Norton often work as a team for each other, one appearing at an article to do tag-team reverts when the other is in an edit conflict. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Evidence#User:Alansohn_and_User:Richard_Arthur_Norton_.281958-_.29_supporting_each_other_in_content_disputes.
  • I think Alansohn should be blocked for a short time to prevent disruption.
  • I also believe that the heading "Edit Warring and WP:OWN problems with User:AdjustShift" is misleading; it should be changed. AdjustShift (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Admins should also analyze past problematic behavior of Alansohn. He has used misleading edit summaries, twisted the words of others, and needlessly accused multiple admins. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Evidence#User:Alansohn_has_a_long_history_of_problematic_editing_and_ignoring_concerns_of_other_users. AdjustShift (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I do admire the effort to shift attention away from AdjustShift and his edit warring, first blaming User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) for adding sources and now blaming me for causing his problems. I have a strong opinion on the issue of using quotations in footnotes and have added them in a few thousand edits to several hundred articles. Despite efforts to argue the issue, Arbcom has refused to take on the issue of "footnoted quotes" and it is a built-in design feature of our citation templates. Just as I will not force any editor to add quotations to sources, I have expressed my opinion in discussion on the article and user talk pages asking for an end to a rather needless (and pathetically WP:LAME) edit war and asked that other editors not impose their arbitrary preference on the subject by blindly reverting such quotations. While User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has complied with the request to refrain from edit warring, User:AdjustShift has persisted in a string of retaliatory blind reverts, which he brazenly acknowledges. While I'm sure that any editor can find something to take issue with among my 220,000 edits, I have played no role in AdjustShift's edit war and have not taken his bait to jump in and exacerbate the disruption he has caused here. It is disappointing that, as an administrator, AdjustShit has refused to respect the opportunity for other editors to participate in a article he claims to WP:OWN by perpetuating a rather needless edit war. Alansohn (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Are you saying that AdjustShift lied when he said that he has made only three reverts on that article in the past week? Yes or no, please. And if the answer is yes, I think we all expect diffs as proof. In fact, diffs proving he has been edit warring are basically required at this point. → ROUX  19:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Roux, you can check the history of that article. I've made only three reverts on that article in the past week. AdjustShift (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Not long ago, on 30 July 2009, Alansohn accused User:Rlevse and User:JGHowes of "meatpuppetry" and "edit warring".[21] It should be noted that both Rlevse and JGHowes are good-faith editors, and respect members of the community. This was JGHowes' response to Alansohn's outrageous accusation. After analyzing Alansohn's behavior, it is absolutely clear that he makes outrageous accusations to good-faith editors to gain an upper hand in content disputes. Alansohn makes good edits, and tries to ameliorate the encyclopedia, but this sort of behavior is unacceptable. Alansohn also has a history of pursuing vendetta against editors he doesn't like. He has repeatedly targeted Rlevse. He opposed both Rlevse's RFB [22] and ArbCom candidacy.[23] During Rlevse's RFB, Animum even warned Alansohn.[24] Wikipedia is a collaborative project; here we have to respect other editors and view-points we don't necessarily agree with. If one is +10 as an editor, but he/she demoralizes 5 other editors, he/she is a net negative to the project. Making outrageous accusations to gain an upper hand in a content dispute is unacceptable. Pursuing vendetta against fellow editors is also unacceptable. I think Alansohn should be blocked for sometime, and he should be warned that such behavior will lead to an indef block.

The heading "Edit Warring and WP:OWN problems with User:AdjustShift" should be changed because it is misleading. I've not engaged in any edit war, and I don't believe that I "own" any article here on en.wikipedia. AdjustShift (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure where I've stated that User:AdjustShift lied, he's simply refused to respect other editors and repeatedly edit warred to remove material without a policy or consensus argument to perpetuate an edit war. My original report of AdjustShift's edit warring included his own link to a list of his blind revert edits, but I will include all of them here for reference:
    10:30, 28 July 2009 "erase needless quotes"
    09:46, 31 July 2009 "There still is no consensus on the talk page to insert the quotes"
    11:47, 3 August 2009 "please don't insert quotes without any strong reason"
  • Contrary to AdjustShift's repeated assertion, there is no policy that requires other editors to ask permission to edit articles, even ones AdjustShift appears to believe he owns. Nor is there any policy that permission must be obtained on the article's talk page to edit an article. There is a rather simple solution here: Editors either use or don't use the built-in quotation feature, while other editors respect that choice. In addition to discussing the reason why they make perfect sense here given that the sources are not publicly available, I have made that suggestion on the article's talk page offering this rather simple solution on the article's talk page on July 29, on July 31, again on July 31 after a blind revert by AdjustShift and on August 1. This was in addition to requests to cease from edit warring left on July 31 on the respective user talk pages for both AdjustShift (see here) and User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (here). RAN respected this request and refrained from editing the article since the request was left on his talk page. AdjustShift has brazenly tried to impose his arbitrary position despite these rather clear requests to cease from edit warring. In the lack of policy requring their removal or consensus that they cannot be used here under any circumstances, we are left with admin AdjustShift abusing process to impose his arbitrary view and perpetuate one of Wikipedia's lamest edit wars ever. As User talk:JGHowes aptly pointed out in response to efforts by AdjustShift to canvass and drum up support, "Repeated reversions will not resolve the dispute over footnoted quotes, nor has Talk page discussion helped. Consensus of the wider community is needed, one way or the other." (see here). Continued edit warring by an admin is not going to help AdjustShift "resolve the dispute", nor should the community condone these tactics. Alansohn (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Three reverts over seven days is not edit-warring. Can you please provide evidence that an editwar has been occurring? → ROUX  21:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Please refer to the first two paragraphs of Wikipedia:Edit war, which state that "An edit war occurs when individual contributors or groups of contributors repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion... Policy forbids edit warring generally, and editors may be blocked if they edit war, with or without breaching 3RR." While I agree that there is no WP:3RR violation by User:AdjustShift, repeated blind reverts of content to impose an arbitrary position is the textbook definition edit warring, certainly not the example we want our admins to set for the community. Alansohn (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
My reverts are not "blind reverts". I was one of the editors who contributed to the article. I was not forced by anyone to revert. I reverted because I felt that inserting the quotes will not benefit the article. Three reverted in seven days is not edit warring. I've never indicated that I "own" the article. I've never abused the process to impose any "arbitrary view"; multiple editors have opposed the idea of inserting quotes in that article. AdjustShift (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I object to bringing up an editor's block log and using it as a cudgel. Editor's who work on contentious material are often blocked and some of our best contributors are rather frequently blocked (which is probably good cause for concern). This is a dispute over quotes in footnotes. Perhaps a discussion at the Article content noticeboard would be the best place to to try to get broader input? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

An editor's block log is quite a valid point to make in any discussion of transgressions, as it can show a pattern of behavior that has crossed the line. A "good editor" with a long block log is a contradiction in terms. It would be nice to have a better visual indicator of blocks that are reduced or overturned, tough. Tarc (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
There are many ways someone can get mistakenly or improperly blocked. Just last week, an administrator blocked someone for canvassing because they sent the admin an email with a link to an AN or ANI thread. The block log is nothing more than a log of when an editor was blocked; it is not to be used as an indication in any way of how good an editor is. --NE2 21:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Well I would hope that when someone drops "look at User X's" block log" into a discussion, other users will actually look at it and note what the individual entries are about. Not do a "OMG it scrolls the page == TEH GUILTY!" shtick. Tarc (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, all it says in the log is "canvassing", so there's no way to know it was a bad block. Either way, it's poisoning the well. --NE2 22:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that some editors have been unjustly blocked, an editor's block log may indicate the problematic behavior of the editor. In Alansohn's case, he was blocked three times in 2009. Below are the three blocks:

22:12, 29 April 2009 Good Olfactory (talk | contribs | block) blocked Alansohn (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 55 hours ‎ (persistent assumptions of bad faith; incivility; personal attacks in violation of editing restrictions) (unblock | change block)

01:04, 15 April 2009 Good Olfactory (talk | contribs | block) blocked Alansohn (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (incivility; violation of editing restrictions at several recent CfDs) (unblock | change block)

21:46, 22 January 2009 Postdlf (talk | contribs | block) blocked Alansohn (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (incivility, violation of editing restrictions) (unblock | change block)

Please analyze the rationale behind each of the three blocks. In some cases, editors are blocked unjustly by a single admin. But, in Alansohn's case, he was blocked twice by Good Olfactory and once by Postdlf. None of those three blocks were reversed. The block log of Alansohn strongly indicates that he has been uncivil towards other editors, and he has a habit of assuming bad-faith. AdjustShift (talk) 02:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

  • In addition to edit warring, User:AdjustShift has been actively violating WP:CANVASS, inviting several other editors he presumes would be supportive of his actions to participate in these proceedings here, here, here and here. While none have taken the bait so far, it is unfortunate that an admin would be working so actively to poison the well here. Even after multiple pleas to AdjustShift to refrain from edit warring, he still appears unable to recognize that his actions are a textbook violation of Wikipedia:Edit war policy, while blaming others for the issues he has created. AdjustShift appears now to have convinced himself that his edit warring here is somehow related to my edit history from months and years in the past. As I've said before, there has been a very simple solution all along: Do nothing. If editors would respect editing preferences of other editors, without imposing their arbitrary preferences, there would be no issue here. An admin who understands how to resolve these issues, rather than escalate them, could have solved this problem over a week ago by simply refraining from doing anything. The choice is still here if AdjustShift is willing to finally accept it and learn a rather simple lesson. Alansohn (talk) 03:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Three reverts in seven days is not "edit warring" or "ownership of article". If anyone thinks that three reverts in seven days is "edit warring" and "ownership of article", he/she is assuming bad-faith. Alansohn, your past behavior, your behavior in this thread, and three blocks in 2009 strongly indicates that you've a habit of assuming bad-faith. If you would respect editing preferences of other editors, without imposing your arbitrary preferences, there would be no issue here. It would be better if you learn a simple lesson, and starting assuming good-faith with fellow editors. AdjustShift (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Isn't this dispute really about quotations in footnotes? I've indicated my opinion, but I think the topic is worth a good faith discussion at the article content noticeboard. As far as civility goes, there's probably room for improvement on both sides. I still think rehashing prior blocks is often an inappropriate way to win a dispute by tarring a fellow editor and making them out to be the "bad guy". I will concede that in this case there have been prior disputes involving this editor, so maybe you have a point, but Alansohn also does an enormous amount of excellent article work so it would be good to try to work with him despite whatever challenges there may be personality wise. It looks to me like an editing dispute, there are other ways to work it out. Would a third opinion help? Is there an editor you both respect whose opinion you could solicit? I suspect the opinions on this particular issue may vary, so you could also try to work out a compromise on which quotes are essential and which aren't really needed. And again, the content noticeboard is a good venue for getting some experienced opinion on the core issue. Anyway, good luck and happy editing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Why are you getting yourself into this edit warring ChildofMidnight ([25])? How does that help resolve anything? There was no consensus to add the quotes in the first place. How about following your own advice and discuss it first. Quantpole (talk) 08:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Here on Wikipedia we don't need consensus to add material to articles. The more accurate question is that there was no consensus to remove the quotes in the first place. Even better is to ask why an admin would perpetuate an edit war over "footnoted quotes", when two out of the three who had initially removed the material decided not to continue edit warring over the lofty principle of keeping an article free of additional information about what is being referenced. No one is under any obligation to use the quotation feature built in to the citation templates. Some editors use them and some don't. That's ok. I've used them on several thousand occasions in several hundred articles, but I don't force other editors adding other references to add quotations. It's up to them to take advantage, or not. The article in question is the perfect place to use footnoted quotes, where the sources are nearly 100 years old and are all unavailable to the public behind the subscription wall of The New York Times. All of this wikidrama would have been -- and could still be -- eliminated if editors learn to respect the fact that it's an optional feature that they are not required to use, even if their arbitrary choice is not to use the function. The best action to take here, and to have taken in the first place, is to do absolutely nothing. Alansohn (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I have no opinion either way on the quotes in question. I just found it odd that someone who was stating on here to discuss the isue then goes straight to the article and carries on the edit war. No you don't need consensus to add something to an article, but once that addition is reverted, the correct course is to discuss the issue. Quantpole (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Alansohn, if you want to discuss this in a civilized manner, please drop your accusation of "edit warring" and "ownership of article". Three reverts in seven days is not "edit warring" or "ownership of article". I was involved in the development of the article, so I became involved in reverting the quotes. I was not told by anyone to revert. The heading of this thread "Edit Warring and WP:OWN problems with User:AdjustShift " is inappropriate – please change the heading. AdjustShift (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I find it really shocking that an admin thinks that "three reverts in seven days is not edit warring". Even 2 reverts in 10 days can be edit warring, it's attitude that matters. I've analysed the page and the talk page carefully and it seems that AdjustShift's behaviour was a classical case of edit-warring. Instead of engaging in constructive discussion with the other guy he just deleted stuff with a grotesque comment that there was "no consensus" for it. And this comment: Bio of Thomas Henry Barry was developed by Rlevse and me. You were not involved in the article before Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) inserted the quotes. There is no consensus to insert the quotes, so I erased them. It is Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) who is engaging in an edit war. is downright comical, with whom was Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) involved in an edit war? with himself perhaps? It takes 2 to tango. Loosmark (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Loosmark, were you involved with this issue before? We had some disagreements over Polish-German issue, but that doesn't mean you should jump here and make comment on an issue that has nothing to do with you. Rlevse and JGHowes also reverted the edits of Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) reverted five times, I've only reverted three times. AdjustShift (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Loosmark, you can read the discussion here. AdjustShift (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
AdjustShift i can comment on whatever issue i want, so i think your telling me what should i do or not do is out of place. Also your understanding of the editwarring concept is simply appalling. If he reverted five times and you three times it simply means you two guys were involved in an edit war. Loosmark (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • ANI is not the place to sort out whether quotes are okay to include in footnotes. I suggest this discussion be archived and the discussion be continued instead on the WP:content noticeboard where it can be discussed civilly and in good faith. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I've to oppose the archiving of this discussion. AdjustShift seems to think that if the other editor reverted 5 times and he reverted 3 times then the other guy is edit-warring but he is not. I think this needs to be addressed. Loosmark (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Three reverts is editwarring just as much as five reverts is. I have received a warning for this myself on this noticeboard.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Why not make a report at WP:3RR? The core issue remains a difference in opinion over using quotations in footnotes and I don't see what admins can be expected to do to resolve it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
In this case, no one has broken WP:3RR. The report to that page will not make any sense. AdjustShift (talk) 04:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Below are the three reverts I've performed:
  • 28 July (Edit summary: erase needless quotes)
  • 31 July (Edit summary: There still is no consensus on the talk page to insert the quotes.)
  • 3 August (Edit summary: See the talk page; please don't insert quotes without any strong reason.)
  • Those three reverts were performed in seven days. Before the second revert and the third revert, I waited for two days; there was no consensus to insert the quotes, so I made one more revert. I wasn't edit warring. AdjustShift (talk) 04:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
It is completely irrelevant whether your edits were made in 5, 7 or 10 days. Your behavior was textbook edit-warring and your denial is starting to be disturbing. Loosmark (talk) 10:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I looked at the "quotes" and find they add no actual information at all pertinent to the article. For example, the article states "Barry died of uremic poisoning at Walter Reed Army Medical Center on December 30, 1919.[1] He had been ill for three weeks.[4]" and the quote sought is "Major Gen. Thomas Henry Barry, U.S.A., retired, died early this morning from uraemic poisoning at the Walter Reed General Army Hospital, near Washington, where he had been ill three weeks, a sufferer from Bright's disease. Mrs. Barry and their son, Major Thomas B. Barry, were with General Barry when he died." which adds the nicely useless information about his illness and who was with him at his death. Another example has the article saying (under Legacy) "Army transport Thomas H. Barry.[5] " with the totally non-essential and trivial quote "The Army transport Thomas H. Barry arrived here yesterday and docked at Pier 11, Staten Island, with 474 passengers after a stormy fourteen-day voyage from ..." which manages to tell us the size of the transport, and no other useful information at all. IMHO, quotes should be used to convey context of information for a claim, and useful additional information. [26] Rlevse was correct, and this complaint from Alansohn, such as it is, applies to him as well, to be sure. Collect (talk) 11:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


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

Original researcher[edit]

Resolved: I no longer care. Tan | 39 01:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Can I get a couple more eyes on these contributions? It seems that they are entirely original research, with no citations whatsoever. Has even created several articles - Barbecue chicken, Rib chop, Loin chop - and moved Chili pepper to Chile pepper despite lots of discussion in the past and a relatively stable consensus. However, I don't want to totally be bitey and I find myself doing that - some help would be appreciated. Tan | 39 00:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the matter needs immediate administrative attention since it is a matter of contents especially food. The user in question appears to be a newbie who needs more time to understand the content policy. So you might try to visit WP:FOOD project for the next time if you face similar matters. After googling news, the article of "meat cuts" seem valid given this ample reliable sources.12,100 for "Barbecue chicken", 797 for "Rib chop", 839 for "Loin chop" In fact somebody asked us (the project members) a couple of days ago to fill in missing information on various meat cut and urged to create article about them. So let's assume good faith since the person is a newbie of less than one month. I have not read all contents of the listed articles, but the label of "original researcher" could be a bit premature.--Caspian blue 01:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to find the value in your comments - I really am - but I'm just not seeing any. A matter of content? A core policy is not being followed, namely, WP:V. I can't see how "original researcher" is in any form premature; there are zero cites and it's patently obvious this guy is adding in stuff off the top of his head. But what else would I expect from you, Caspian. I do my best to stay out of your way; try to return the favor. Marking resolved; if no one cares then I won't either. Tan | 39 01:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Please be civil and assume good faith. I tried to help you regardless of the past but you're always same. Sadly many of food articles are in poor status without any single sources for long time, so if the project members find out that some article on a same theme should be fixed, then all tend to try to add sources or others. And as far as I've known, you said so just content issues on similar matters brought up to ANI. If you want to resolve this, that would be several ways for yourself; adding sources and educating the newbie. You only just gave him a warning one time so far and he got no warning before. If it is going to happen chronically, you're an admin with the magic tool that just non-admins are afraid, so what is bothering you? :P--Caspian blue 01:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I do not need, nor want, your "help" in any imaginable capacity. I seriously make a very solid effort to not comment about you, to you, or about much of anything you are already involved in. I hold opinions of you that I cannot post here. Please, just try to return the favor. Tan | 39 02:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Instead of making the uncivil and pointless comment off the topic, you really need to get along (or at least pretend to get along) with people who have disagreed with you in the past or validly criticized your action. Since the subject is in my usual interest, I don't care who've brought up the issue to ANI since I wanted to help the issue resolved from good faith. Is your feeling something to do with the editor who produced articles of meat cuts? Since you're an admin that should hold higher standard of integrity and civility, please focus on the subject and show me some good one. Or just simply stop adding your comment here.--Caspian blue 02:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I think you both made some good points. The issues were worth bringing to people's attention, and as Caspian suggests (and as I believe Tan already did?) a note on the food and drink project probably would have been the best place. I think the discussion and concern were legitimate and there's really no harm in posting this kind of issue here. There's certainly no need to argue. We're all friends on Wikipedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with ChildofMidnight, a note on the WikiProject would have been a good call. Tan is already pushing this discussion to the edges of civility, and its not achieving a damn thing. Jeni (talk) 11:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
You mean like this note on the Wikiproject? Do you ever look into situations before you comment, Jeni? All I ever see you do is accuse other people of incivility and telling them to "assume good faith" (the most overused phrase on this project), when you never seem to have the first clue of the actual situation, historical behavior, or any other pertinent information. You like to fan flames, don't you? Tan | 39 14:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
And once again the incivilities start to show. You posted that note 9 mins before coming here, hardly a chance for anyone at the WikiProject to look into anything or even reply! Jeni (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Overdue AfD[edit]

Resolved

This is past its sell-by date: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthropocene extinction event Dougweller (talk) 11:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Closed. Cheers,  Skomorokh  14:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Ladgy[edit]

Resolved: Socks indef-blocked and user blocked temporarily.

User has been making frivolous and vexatious reports to WP:AIV, including Kww (talk · contribs), Charmed36 (talk · contribs), and TheWoogie (talk · contribs) with no warnings given whatsoever. I strongly suspect that this user is making such reports in retaliation to either reverts on watched articles or for talk page messages received. Can someone help out here, please? MuZemike 02:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If just trying to make them stop reveting the article for their is no need to and im not trying to block myself and it was not if grude or furiosity kk. And the solutuion that came to pass was 24 hr block and pg protcect thats all just to make them stop.Ladgy (talk) 02:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladgy (talkcontribs) 02:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ladgy has been edit-warring over a redirect on Broken-Hearted Girl for some time. It's one of those "rumored but unconfirmed" single articles that fails WP:NSONGS by a wide margin. There isn't any particular reason to even have the redirect, and, since Ladgy won't leave the redirect alone, I've taken it to AFD. At the very least, we'll get a consensus about what to do with it there.—Kww(talk) 03:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Ladgy, AIV is not the purpose for that. AIV, quoting the page, is intended to get administrator attention for obvious and persistent vandals and spammers only. Settling content disputes or revert-warring are not the purposes of that page. You are supposed to engage in dispute resolution, which starts at the articles' talk pages involved, and then you work from there if said dispute is not resolved. While I'm at it, don't continue to forum-shop at other places if you don't get your way, such as requests for page protection (see [27]), let alone cite "vandalism" as a reason for protection when it clearly is not. Nobody owns articles here; we discuss actions taken – not write them off as vandalism. Now that the article has been nominated for deletion, I suggest you start discussing there. MuZemike 05:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm resurrecting this report because the disruption continues:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broken-Hearted Girl has been under sock attack, with all the socks sounding suspiciously like Ladgy:

Additionally, he's made personal attacks against Charmed36 on my talk page.

I think it's time for Ladgy to receive a time-out.—Kww(talk) 13:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've indefblocked all the other accounts per WP:DUCK as obvious socks, and Ladgy for 24 hours for trying to votestack the AfD and otherwise being disruptive. Because Charmed36 self-identifies as gay on their userpage, I don't think Ladgy's comment can really be construed as a personal attack (although the tone of it was less than civil). Hope this helps, EyeSerenetalk 14:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith[edit]

  • I would appreciate if an uninvolved admin would have a look at this article, it's talk page, and the edit-warring currently going on there. Please also have a look at this diff, which (perhaps incorrectly) interpret as bullying. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, the diff - that's a standard warning template (see {{3rr}}). If you look here, you'll see you've made two reverts today on that page, so the warning was warranted. Secondly, Hrafn (talk · contribs), Verbal (talk · contribs), Colonel Warden (talk · contribs), and dave souza (talk · contribs) have also been revert-warring, and the same warning would apply to them as well; Verbal was being rather presumptive in leaving you a warning when they were engaged in the same problematic behaviour. I've locked the page for now to head off any further trouble, and I strongly encourage all involved to discuss their differences on the article talk-page or, failing that, follow dispute resolution. The same goes for American Scientific Affiliation (the article currently redirected to by Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith). Further edit-warring will lead to blocks. EyeSerenetalk 14:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the protections. The fact that Verbal slammed me with a 3RR warning while engaging in the same behavior (and the general uncivil behavior on the PSCF talk page were indeed exactly what made me upset and feel that it was unwarranted (at least coming from her/him). (I have yet to break 3RR after several years of WP editing). --Crusio (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
By warning you I also warned myself, so don't worry about it. Establishing notability would be a first step to reversing the redirect. Verbal chat 14:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, I see no uncivil behaviour by me there, and I would appreciate a notification if I am going to be criticised on ANI. Unsubstantiated accusations of incivility would seem to be themselves highly uncivil. If you come to my talk page with diffs, or provide RS asserting notability, I'll be willing to discuss those - which is also the first step in WP:DR. Verbal chat 14:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Verbal, as an experienced editor I'm sure you've already realised that a friendly reminder would probably have been more tactful than a templated warning (per WP:DTTR). However, your willingness to engage in discussion is excellent and demonstrates good faith, and I wish all of you well in resolving this. EyeSerenetalk 14:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The return of Sim12[edit]

Resolved

Guesws who's back, it's Simulation12's latest sock Simulation21. She/he has been bombarding my talk page with socks for months now ever she was banned and blamed me and Gladys j cortez for it. Can someone please ban this one? The Cool Kat (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Closedmouth beat me to it. ➲ REDVERS Buy war bonds 14:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I have blocked the underlying IP and Wheeloffortune26 (talk · contribs), who is most likely a good hand account. -- Luk talk 16:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Troublesome Pair[edit]

Resolved: Kxings has been indef blocked by J.delanoy. AdjustShift (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Kxings (talk · contribs) and Katsumasahiro (talk · contribs). I've already blocked Katsumasahiro for violating the 3RR (which is how I found them). Just kinda take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kira Takenouchi (2nd nomination). We have personal attacks, legal threats, incivility, edit warring...I'm kind of at a loss...I'd provide diffs...but it's pretty much, well...all of them...but here are some of Kxings', shall we say "Greatest Hits": [28][29][30][31] --Smashvilletalk 16:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This is rich...he just "blocked" me. --Smashvilletalk 17:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Haha, neat. Propaniac (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
LOL. Kxings has been indef blocked by J.delanoy. [32] AdjustShift (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • This sockpuppet case was started before either one was blocked. I would like to say that the drama is over, but Katsumasahiro's block only lasts for 24 hours. --Farix (Talk) 17:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Request to revoke sanction[edit]

Because of an edit war between me and User:William Allen Simpson , User:Aervanath imposed a certain sanction upon both of us. I think this sanction is unfair to me. User:Aervanath seems to be unavailable. At the end of that Wikipedia:AN3 discussion it says that this is the place to appeal. I have outlaid all my arguments there a week ago. (I was offline this last week because I moved.) Debresser (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That does seem like a little extreme of a restriction. Have you tried discussing it with William Allen Simpson to see if the two of you can come up with a mutual agreement? I think it should probably be reduced to "no reverts of each other's edits, widely construed". In other words, mandating that you review each other's contributions to make sure that the other hasn't edited a page within the last month is a bit extreme. But I don't see a reason to remove the restriction completely unless/until the two of you have an agreement that the disruption will not happen again. --B (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable, although the idea of discussion with William Allen Simpson sounds unlikely, as it is not his way... On the other hand, it ignores my arguments in Wikipedia:AN3 that I have behaved a lot better than William Allen Simpson, and don't think I deserve to be treated the same way as he. Please note that other editors there have stated their agreement with this assessment of mine. In short, I feel that the sanction is an unjustice and should be lifted from me regardless. Debresser (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Please notice that the admin imposing the sanction seems to be on a wikibreak ever since, and is not available to explain herself or change her mind. Debresser (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I see that. I notified Aervanath of the thread and he hasn't responded, so we can take that to mean that he isn't monitoring his talk page or doesn't care. I have notified User:William Allen Simpson of this thread as anything done here needs to be mutual. I suggest modifying the sanction as follows: For an indefinite period, William Allen Simpson (talk · contribs) and Debresser (talk · contribs) are on a mutual editing restriction. They are not permitted to revert each other's edits (widely construed) or take any action that would reasonably be inferred as "stalking" the other's contributions. (Do not look at special:contributions/the other party.) This sanction will only be lifted at the mutual agreement of William Allen Simpson and Debresser. --B (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
That sounds better. I accept this proposal. But in the end it will not be enough. User:William Allen Simpson is a disruptive editor: he violated the 3-revert-rule in this last conflict (as linked in the Wikipedia:AN3 discussion), engages in tendentious editing, reverts any of my actions without any explanations in editsummaries/article talkpages/my talkpage, disregards the fact that others disagree with him (which happens often because of his tendentious and pointy editing), and has been warned numerous times for trying to own pages and uncivil conduct (including a recent block). When he does engage in discussions (one of these instances was after an admin protected the page and insisted he should partake in discussion) it is invariably with a lot of ad hominem remarks and wikilawyering. I'd prefer a solution that would try and address these problems, because an editing restriction on me is only surpressing the symptom, but not curing the sick. Debresser (talk) 10:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've returned from an involuntary wikibreak (my internet connection was cut off for a week, and I was too busy with other real-life considerations to get it fixed until now), so I apologize to all concerned that it's taken so long for me to get back and comment on this situation. I would first like to address Debresser's concerns that he and William Allen Simpson were subjected to identical restrictions. The primary reason is that it takes two to tango. While my impression is that overall, in his on-wiki behavior, Debresser has been the more cooperative and consensus-seeking of the two editors, I believe that he has developed somewhat of a knee-jerk reaction where William Allen Simpson is concerned. I agree with B (talk · contribs)'s suggestion that William Allen Simpson (talk · contribs) and Debresser (talk · contribs) be restricted from reverting each other's edits for an indefinite period, and I now concede that my initial restriction was overly harsh. I recommend that both of them be encouraged to engage in some sort of dialogue to reach an understanding on how to deal with each other. I thank B (talk · contribs) for his cogent and well-thought-out comments on this situation.--Aervanath (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Welcome back Aervanath. I mean that. As I said before, I will agree with this second sanction.
I deny having any reaction to User:William Allen Simpson, be it knee-jerk or allergic. I just have come to the conclusion that he is a pointy and tendentious editor, and furthermore likely to show problems of ownership and incivility. My personal opinion about him, which you have on occasion supposed to be one of dislike, is clearly defined, but just as clearly of no consequence. What is important, is that User:William Allen Simpson is, in my opinion, detrimental to the Wikipedia community.
Please do not think that I am wagging a war against User:William Allen Simpson. I have tried to bring him onto the right track, posting on his talkpage and on occasion on wp:wqa, wp:AN3 or here, but he has shown himself unreceptive to my posts, as well as those of many, many others. I am just trying to fix those edits which I consider "wrong", that is, not reflecting the opinion of the Wikipedia community as I understand it to be. Of course, I am prone to lean to the side of what I would like this community to think, but that does not diminish the sincerity of my efforts. I find an important indication that I am doing the right thing, in the fact that several editors, including you, have expressed worries along the lines of my own misfeelings. Sometimes they have actively supported me, in repeating my edits and on Wikipedia:AN3. Without me even dreaming of asking for their support! Recent edits of User:William Allen Simpson on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, brought to my attention by another editor, together with what I already had seen myself, indicate an unhealthy pattern of involvement with Wikipedia.
I wish User:William Allen Simpson would stop being a problem, but I have come to the conclusion that this will not happen. One way or the other, this will not end nice. And that is the way it should be, for the benefit of the community. I would like to appeal to you to consider carefully wether there is no way to influence User:William Allen Simpson to better his ways, or, if none can be found, to solve this problem otherwise. Debresser (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Escalate from WQA[edit]

Resolved: Syrthiss made the user walk the plank. TNXMan 16:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Ekspert9123128391 I think that this use of "cunt" is beyond our typical warnings. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope that folks will regard my blocking of alphabetsoup there with no warnings extant on their page in a kindly light. Syrthiss (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. I gave them a final warning, but had little faith they would become a proper contributor, so do not object. --John (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Geez, did I really accidentally put my welcomecivil template on his Userpage? My bad ... conference call + editing Wikipedia at same time = feckups :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

For the general record, we should probably establish a guideline like warning first THEN ANI/AIV THEN blocking or something. ;) Syrthiss (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I might disagree with especially bad uncivility like this ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Generally, at WQA I look to see if they have even been given the standard set of rules in a welcome. It's one of the reasons I designed my {{welcomecivil}} template. However, the way this guy used "cunt" is IMHO an especially bad WP:NPA, and a couple of days block - plus the reminder Welcome - should be a wakeup call to him. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeh, thats why I IAR'ed (pronounced YAAAARR, like a pirate). Syrthiss (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Gonna put a block notice on his talkpage? Or just keep him strapped to the yardarm? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The 3 of you need to remember the following: the user to whom the comment was directed did not take care in his revert, and admits that his edit-summary was at least partially misleading/incorrect. The blocked user hadn't been warned (and given an opportunity to reform), let alone welcomed. No effort was made to communicate with the user at all prior to the block, which should've been done when it came to WQA, rather than escalate immediately. No block message was put on his talk page either. If the user is capable of being professional in his commentary (both in edit-summaries and user talk contributions), and can be a proper contributor, and moreover, ends up being frustrated because of the block, guess who's head(s) will be served on a platter for not communicating with him and escalating this? ;) I think my point is clear, but that's just a hypothetical, I suppose. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
No worse than the sort of language that some admins used to praise JzG for using. How times change. That said, warn first, and always leave a block notice. DuncanHill (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I did overlook the block notice. I will go do that now. Syrthiss (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I of course would not be offended by it being a 24hr block as prevention of additional being p'd off at Jimbo Online, and additional tantrums, rather than indef. He then has a full chance of reform based on the wakeup call that Wikipedia is collboarative. That is why I at least welcomed him ... didn't expect an indef. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to move that the block be shortened to ~ 48 hours, for the reason above. That said, I'm not an active sysop, and am treading lightly. -- Pakaran 16:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the block should be a definite length. Indeff is for people who are here only to disrupt/attack/vandalize etc. and/or continue to do so after warnings, usually more than one. 24 hours should be plenty for two personal attacks without prior warnings and when other edits seem to be constructive. While blocking at all is often opposed when there are no warnings, the block in this case is good, however, the length is excessive. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned on my talk page to Ncmvocalist, I'm content if anyone wants to shorten the block or unblock the editor in question. I expect that the user was here solely to pick fights, but maybe I'm just inferring that from the interest in soccer hooliganism and the quick jump to personal attacks. I don't know for sure that is what they intended. So: unblock, shorten, whatever you (the community you, not YOU you) think best. Syrthiss (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, reduce block to something in the range of 24 hours, 48 hours, or 48 less time served. -- Pakaran 18:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Reduced to 24 hours...tho I suspect the block log will start the 24 from now so its more like 31ish total. Syrthiss (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

A very quick request.[edit]

Resolved: Advice and pointer received. --GoRight (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where else I can make this request so I am asking here. I would simply like some kind administrator to restore some content that was speedily deleted and move it under a user account. See [33]. If that content could please be restored as a subpage under either the original user's account, or alternatively mine, I would appreciate it. I will work with this individual to understand how such controversy pages normally come into being. I would like to review to content they originally had in the deleted page and to assist them in adding it to the main MSNBC page, if appropriate.

If there is a more appropriate place for such requests please let me know for future reference. --GoRight (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

See WP:REFUND - if they don't get it done rather quickly, drop me a line and I'll look this evening. — Ched :  ?  18:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I took a look at it, and there's nothing really to add to the MSNBC page. It's basically a short unsourced piece that says MSNBC is a left-wing propaganda outlet that hates Bush and Palin. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Correction -- the version that was ultimately deleted had no sources, but the version PokeHomsar (talk · contribs) last edited did have sources, although several of them were blogs (and the others I couldn't determine reliability with just a quick glance.) PokeHomsar's last version might be a candidate for userfication, but WP:DRV would be a better venue than WP:REFUND because it would be just a tad more controversial than our scope at REFUND. Cheers!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer to WP:REFUND. Cute acronym. I shall pursue the matter there. Thank you all for your assistance and you can mark this item as resolved from your perspective. --GoRight (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Escalate from WQA[edit]

Resolved: Syrthiss made the user walk the plank. TNXMan 16:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Ekspert9123128391 I think that this use of "cunt" is beyond our typical warnings. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope that folks will regard my blocking of alphabetsoup there with no warnings extant on their page in a kindly light. Syrthiss (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. I gave them a final warning, but had little faith they would become a proper contributor, so do not object. --John (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Geez, did I really accidentally put my welcomecivil template on his Userpage? My bad ... conference call + editing Wikipedia at same time = feckups :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

For the general record, we should probably establish a guideline like warning first THEN ANI/AIV THEN blocking or something. ;) Syrthiss (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I might disagree with especially bad uncivility like this ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Generally, at WQA I look to see if they have even been given the standard set of rules in a welcome. It's one of the reasons I designed my {{welcomecivil}} template. However, the way this guy used "cunt" is IMHO an especially bad WP:NPA, and a couple of days block - plus the reminder Welcome - should be a wakeup call to him. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeh, thats why I IAR'ed (pronounced YAAAARR, like a pirate). Syrthiss (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Gonna put a block notice on his talkpage? Or just keep him strapped to the yardarm? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The 3 of you need to remember the following: the user to whom the comment was directed did not take care in his revert, and admits that his edit-summary was at least partially misleading/incorrect. The blocked user hadn't been warned (and given an opportunity to reform), let alone welcomed. No effort was made to communicate with the user at all prior to the block, which should've been done when it came to WQA, rather than escalate immediately. No block message was put on his talk page either. If the user is capable of being professional in his commentary (both in edit-summaries and user talk contributions), and can be a proper contributor, and moreover, ends up being frustrated because of the block, guess who's head(s) will be served on a platter for not communicating with him and escalating this? ;) I think my point is clear, but that's just a hypothetical, I suppose. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
No worse than the sort of language that some admins used to praise JzG for using. How times change. That said, warn first, and always leave a block notice. DuncanHill (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I did overlook the block notice. I will go do that now. Syrthiss (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I of course would not be offended by it being a 24hr block as prevention of additional being p'd off at Jimbo Online, and additional tantrums, rather than indef. He then has a full chance of reform based on the wakeup call that Wikipedia is collboarative. That is why I at least welcomed him ... didn't expect an indef. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to move that the block be shortened to ~ 48 hours, for the reason above. That said, I'm not an active sysop, and am treading lightly. -- Pakaran 16:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the block should be a definite length. Indeff is for people who are here only to disrupt/attack/vandalize etc. and/or continue to do so after warnings, usually more than one. 24 hours should be plenty for two personal attacks without prior warnings and when other edits seem to be constructive. While blocking at all is often opposed when there are no warnings, the block in this case is good, however, the length is excessive. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned on my talk page to Ncmvocalist, I'm content if anyone wants to shorten the block or unblock the editor in question. I expect that the user was here solely to pick fights, but maybe I'm just inferring that from the interest in soccer hooliganism and the quick jump to personal attacks. I don't know for sure that is what they intended. So: unblock, shorten, whatever you (the community you, not YOU you) think best. Syrthiss (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, reduce block to something in the range of 24 hours, 48 hours, or 48 less time served. -- Pakaran 18:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Reduced to 24 hours...tho I suspect the block log will start the 24 from now so its more like 31ish total. Syrthiss (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

A very quick request.[edit]

Resolved: Advice and pointer received. --GoRight (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where else I can make this request so I am asking here. I would simply like some kind administrator to restore some content that was speedily deleted and move it under a user account. See [34]. If that content could please be restored as a subpage under either the original user's account, or alternatively mine, I would appreciate it. I will work with this individual to understand how such controversy pages normally come into being. I would like to review to content they originally had in the deleted page and to assist them in adding it to the main MSNBC page, if appropriate.

If there is a more appropriate place for such requests please let me know for future reference. --GoRight (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

See WP:REFUND - if they don't get it done rather quickly, drop me a line and I'll look this evening. — Ched :  ?  18:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I took a look at it, and there's nothing really to add to the MSNBC page. It's basically a short unsourced piece that says MSNBC is a left-wing propaganda outlet that hates Bush and Palin. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Correction -- the version that was ultimately deleted had no sources, but the version PokeHomsar (talk · contribs) last edited did have sources, although several of them were blogs (and the others I couldn't determine reliability with just a quick glance.) PokeHomsar's last version might be a candidate for userfication, but WP:DRV would be a better venue than WP:REFUND because it would be just a tad more controversial than our scope at REFUND. Cheers!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer to WP:REFUND. Cute acronym. I shall pursue the matter there. Thank you all for your assistance and you can mark this item as resolved from your perspective. --GoRight (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Scribner 3RR block[edit]

I gave a 72 hour block to Scribner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for edit warring on Paul Krugman. (This user has been blocked several times before.) He has emailed me, asking for an unblock so that he could contribute to the RFC on Talk:Paul Krugman. Any opinions? -- King of ♠ 22:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If he can write on his talkpage still, tell him to write a commitment there first, that he will refrain from making any edits to the article whatsoever during these 72 hours. Debresser (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'll contact him on his talk page. -- King of ♠ 22:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Error when accessing Talk page for First-person shooter engine[edit]

It consistently return the message "Override this function.". It's an old article which already had content in its Talk page. I don't know if it's a result of vandalism (though I think it's unlikely), or simply a technical error. I even don't know if here is the right place to report it. Hervegirod (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say go to WP:VPT or bugzilla. -- King of ♠ 22:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, however, it just returned after approx. 10 mns. Thanks however. I will know how to report next time. Hervegirod (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
(EC) I have had the same problem as well, when trying to edit a (different) page, BTW. Probably just a technical glitch, not page-specific at all. I tried it and had no problem accessing Talk:First-person shooter engine. Try it again, perhaps? -- King of ♠ 22:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks, you are surely right about this. Now it's OK again. Hervegirod (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll make a bug report. -- King of ♠ 22:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Known issue, related to a software update. Mentioned earlier on Talk:Main Page.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Oops, I already reported it. Oh well. -- King of ♠ 22:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I received the same thing while editing my own sandbox. Glad it's not a big deal. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sharma[edit]

User:Solyd truth (single-purpose account) persistently added dubious text to Sharma article, reverted by several users. After some time, he created two fork pages with his verison of text, Sharma Family Name and Sharma Name Origins. (I redirected them to "Sharma".) Since he failed to respond to the notice in his talk page, I blocked him for 1 hour with the note to read and respond to the message. Since I am involved in editing this page, please someone admin take from there and keep an eye on the activities of this editor. - Altenmann >t 23:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That username seems like it may fail the username policy... or at least raises red flags. Anything with "truth" in it does for me anyway. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

User vandalising pages and has no talk page[edit]

Is it me, this ip is strange. He is vandalising pages and has or appears to have no talk page.[[35]] (Off2riorob (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

Works for me... User talk:81.76.4.92 Jeni (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
That's when you edit the red link and make the talk page yourself.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Strange, it is there now! All I was getting was a white page with the words, 'overide this function' in the top left corner. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC))
Funnily enough, I got the same white screen with "override this function" an hour or two ago when I tried to look at the RSN history. There is a gremlin in the system. --JN466 23:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh. I got that error before too. Server hiccup.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. Excuse my panic. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC))
I also got an "override this function" when looking at a history. Never seen that before. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I keep getting that too. In fact, I got it just now when I tried to comment here. Hit the back button and clicked edit again and worked normally. I hope they resolve the issue soon, it's kind of annoying. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 01:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

David Miscavige[edit]

These edits are very questionable in terms of application of WP:BLP: [36]. BLP demands an emphasis of a neutral POV and must be very verifiable. These edits in the lead section of the article are not conform with these rules, but it seems to me an indicator for "edit warring" as it was common recently and caused the Arbitration Committee to decide in May 2009 "(C) To edit in accordance with all Wikipedia policies and to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding", which has been put on the article's talk page [37]. Please review. Proximodiz (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that Proximodiz was topic-banned from Scientology related topics (including that article, on the Church of Scientology's current leader) by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology. I won't hazard an opinion if this is a violation of a topic ban, but just FYI for anyone who is reviewing in more depth. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
On further review, it does constitute a clear violation of clause (ii) of the topic ban:
Scope of Scientology topic ban
3A) Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles, including as examples but not limited to, articles for deletion, reliable sources noticeboard, administrators' noticeboard and so forth.
Passed 11 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC) [38]
One month block is authorized by the case findings but I will limit to a one week block in the hopes that that's enough pour encourager les autres and have people take the arbcom findings seriously. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Requesting long-term block for IP 69.225.251.134 (a.k.a. User:Lysdexia, previously banned)[edit]

This IP signs posts as "lysdexia" and has the same editing pattern as User:Lysdexia (banned for sockpuppetry). The IP has been warned numerous times by myself and other users (see