Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive619

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

Noticeboard archives



This new user has only made three edits, though this one concerns me [1]. I think this is a probable attack account problem. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Admin has deleted revision. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 09:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Anat Kamm#Requested move[edit]

The Requested Move was relisted by User:PhantomSteve. But the admins evaluation did not mention nor valuate at all the claim (in the statements/!votes, my me): "This is a WP:PARENT posting". I would prefer to have another admin to take a look & decision on this. Any discussion is at the talk-page. Notification will be made there (shortly). -DePiep (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I have commented there, as an uninvolved admin, that I do not think PARENT applies and that I endorse PhantomSteve's decision to relist. JohnCD (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


I'm starting this here because I've been involved with the user on one AfD. The userbox (which I've already nominated for MfD indicates this user's intention (which he's carried out on over 20 articles earlier this evening) to !vote to delete in any article that's been nominated for deletion, and hence for rescue. In many cases, he has added ARSnote early in the discussion, giving the false impression that the article had been flagged for rescue that early in the discussion.

I'd request that the user be formally admonished for such behavior and directed to participate in a collegial, rather than overtly partisan manner in the future. Jclemens (talk) 05:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Tell me you didn't use your tools to revert all his edits. I can see you did, but what were you thinking? AniMate 05:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
And upon further investigation I see you are in an ongoing dispute with him. Unacceptable. AniMate 05:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
That's exactly what he did. See my complaint below at Wikipedia:ANI#User:Jclemens abuse of rollback rights. Jclemens claims that I blindly vote to delete every page listed on ARS. However, he is fully aware that I have voted to Keep several articles listed on ARS, and I have skipped over others that I couldn't conclusively determine a vote for. His comments on my user talk page prove that he was aware of this. The rest of my comments on this matter can be found below in my own complaint. SnottyWong talk 05:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Please explain to me how I could possibly be aware that you reviewed articles for deletion and didn't comment one way or the other on them. Which ones were those? Jclemens (talk) 05:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
So, AniMate, let's explore that. Did I block him? Nope. Did I unilaterally topic ban him? No, but I did ask him to discuss here before continuing. Did I change anything related to the one AfD on which we're actually in dispute? Nope. Am I an ARS member? Nope. Was I the one who threw the {{rescue}} on the article related to the one AfD on which we're actually in dispute? Nope. So, how much more uninvolved do you really want me to be in the face of reactive disruption?
So really, here's the sequence of actions:
1) I rescued an article.
2) He !voted delete after I'd added reliable sources.
3) I pointed out how his efforts failed to dis-establish notability.
4) He went and !voted delete on a ton of other {{rescue}}'ed articles.
5) He created a userbox touting his efforts and their motivation.
6) I MFD'ed the userbox, reverted the AfD's in which I was uninvolved, and brought my actions here for discussion.
Again... how is this me becoming emotional or misusing tools? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I am a tad concerned that an older user with a totally uneventful edit history suddenly became almost 100% involved in deleting articles on 28 March 2010, almost as though he were a totally different editor. Out of the last hundred AfDs he has !voted on, he has a total of 5 "keep" !votes. From March 2007 to 26 October 2009, he was absent from AfD entirely. I fear that by so acting as a pure predictable !vote, and becoming known, that his !votes will achieve the same value as Ikip's did on the other side. Collect (talk) 12:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Do you think the account has been highjacked? Unlike Ikip, Snottywong gives valid reasons for his opinion, and hasn't been disruptive. Verbal chat 12:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Jclemens abuse of rollback rights[edit]

ALSO SEE Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jclemens ZacharyLassiter (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Jclemens has taken it upon himself to rollback all of my recent !votes on multiple, unrelated AfD's (approximately 20 of them). His reasons for doing this are the following:

  1. He has interpreted a personal userbox that I recently created as a de facto admission of guilt to bad faith editing.
  2. He has become emotional during an argument we've been having on an AfD for (presumably) one of his articles: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up.

Jclemens has not made any attempts to contact me for an explanation of my userbox prior to rolling back all of my !votes (unless you count the MfD he started on the userbox). Furthermore, this message he left on my user talk page proves that he is fully aware that I have voted to both to keep and delete the various AfD's in question, which proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that I have not been editing in bad faith. These keep votes were made long before any of this happened, and long before the userbox was created.

It's apparent that Jclemens is letting his emotions get the best of him, and using his rollback rights to act on those emotions. I respectfully request that all of the rollbacks he has performed on my edits be undone. Whether or not his rollback rights are taken away (or some other punitive action is taken) is not something I can comment on, but I will leave that up to the admins who can better make that judgement. SnottyWong talk 05:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I've skimmed the edits he reverted. All were reasonable delete or keep comments, with rationales that showed Snottywong had actually looked at the articles. Personally, I think you should ditch the userbox, but Jclemens pretty clearly abused his tools here. I'd undo his reversions but I'm going to be off for about an hour. If nothing has changed when I get back, I'll undo them myself. AniMate 05:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
There's no question in my mind, AniMate, that many of his rationales were otherwise appropriate. The rate, focus, and virtually unanimous skew of his !votes, combined with the initial version of his userbox, clearly show bad faith. Jclemens (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
No, the rate focus, and skew do not imply bad faith. Come on. If SnottyWong's single goal in life is to prune wikipedia of non-notable pages, and he's found a way to find such pages, then there is nothing bad faith about that. The box is arguably an attack, but even that does not imply bad faith. Please assume good faith. ErikHaugen (talk) 03:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
1) Please post diffs that you allege show me "becoming emotional".
2) I did, in fact, contact you after I had reverted your disruptive edits. Please highlight a requirement that disruptive editors be contacted before their disruptive edits are corrected.
(Interjection by DustFormsWords) - WP:AGF suggests you probably shouldn't be declaring edits disruptive at all until you've talked to the person who made them.
(response to interjection: You may feel free to insert "which I perceived to be", if you prefer) Jclemens (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
3) Prior to this discussion you have changed your userbox to be less directly offensive. Let the record show that I interpreted the prior version of the userbox as prima facie evidence of bad faith, not the revised version.
4) My rollback rights are not a discrete privilege; as an administrator, I would have to be desysop'ed for them to be removed.
Overall, if the user is going to be less blatant about blanket !voting deletion on anything flagged for rescue (With the exception of Upstate New York, which proves nothing) and going to fade into the rest of the deletionist camp, then there's really nothing particularly actionable here. But !voting in ONLY debates flagged for rescue, doing so in an overwhelming one-sided manner, and explicitly stating in a userbox the ARS-centric motivation for doing so is disruptive editing. Jclemens (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • From my (non-admin) perspective having come into the matter, they were bad reverts, admittedly triggered by what was (at that time) a pretty inflammatory userbox. Jclemens doesn't appear to be escalating the matter (other than in the heated response above), it's certainly far short of being worthy of a block or a de-adminning, so surely there's not much to be done here other than ask everyone to consider more friendly ways of interacting in future? - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Jclemens, please undo your rollbacks. There is indeed something actionable here, but it isn't Snottywong's edits, or even his userbox. Your argument is defeated by the fact that we have dozens of different ways that deletion discussions are sorted and lists created all over the place. There's no difference in someone electing to participate in discussion where the ARS has tagged an article, and electing to participate only in discussions about history, biography, transport, LGBT issues, or Hornepayne. Frankly, I am hard-pressed to understand why you think misusing one administrator tool is different than misusing another. Risker (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
So, Risker, if a user were to follow every LGBT AfD, !vote delete on most of them, and then created and placed on their user page a Userbox saying how proud he was to be reducing the homosexual influence on Wikipedia, that would be OK? I gotta disagree. Jclemens (talk) 06:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
A (very) brief search through the ANI incident archive reveals that this may not be the first time that people have had a problem with Jclemens' actions as an administrator. Perhaps a review of his adminship is in order after all. I have not gone through the past complaints in detail as I'm about to get off for the night and go to sleep. I will take a look in more detail tomorrow to see if there is a pattern in the past complaints. If anything, it's obvious from his comments above and his continual arguing that he still doesn't understand what he did wrong, despite the fact that no one has taken his side yet. SnottyWong talk 05:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
So, rather than defending your edits, you'd rather this focused on the person who cleaned up your disruption? Yeah. All past complaints on my administrative actions are available for public view.... Including all the people who've previously commented there, for instance. I welcome the scrutiny. Jclemens (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Snottywong seems to have voted perfectly normally in all the AFDs that he was involved in, he included a vote, and a valid and pertinent policy reason. His edits at AFD were not IMO in any way disruptive. On the other hand, you've gone through and removed a whole bunch of votes based entirely on his philosophy expressed on a completely different page. This is both wikistalking and disrupting the AFD process.- Wolfkeeper 06:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
So you don't view the expressed motivation for the edits to "counteract the implicit canvassing by the Article Rescue Squadron" to be in any way disruptive? That is, even when editors are clearly acting in a partisan fashion, as long as they follow the letter of the law, they're OK? Isn't that what WP:POINT is all about? Jclemens (talk) 06:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Just revert the reverts, Jclemens. Even if you were right about bad faith, this wasn't the appropriate action to have taken. The closing admins are on the whole sharp cookies that I have a lot of respect for, and they're not going to be tricked into unwarranted deletions by spurious arguments. If an AfD turns on something Snottywong said it will be because it was a good argument, and that's the best reason for letting them remain I can think of. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, for what it's worth, my impression of the whole matter is that Snottywong got frustrated with other editors (as we all do from time to time) and created a userbox expressing that frustration. When it was pointed out to him the userbox was offensive, he immediately changed it. It doesn't indicate anything more than very natural emotions, a momentary lapse of judgement, and a general willingness to work in harmony with an often difficult community. Extrapolating it into a series of bad faith edits is, itself, something that overlooks the principle of assuming good faith. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
You left out the bit where he jumped into more than a score of AfD's flagged for rescue with the expressed purpose of deleting them in between the part where he got frustrated and created the userbox. Other than that, I don't disagree with your summary. Jclemens (talk) 07:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
If he'd gone through and just typed "Delete not notable" or similar next to every rescue-tagged AfD, then you might have a point about WP:POINT. But on the ones I've looked at, he did include valid rationales (i.e. on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZipcodeZoo he says "All refereces are primary" and he's right). So it wasn't just a case of blind !voting - I note he took over an hour to comment at all those AfDs. You can argue about the motivation behind it, but you can't remove valid comments based on your own opinion of his motivation, I'm afraid. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Spending an hour sounds like a lot of work... but then you consider he !voted in over 20 (anyone feel like counting the exact number?) and has asserted that he looked over more rescue-flagged AfDs and didn't comment in them. I've never disputed that he included valid rationales, just pointed out his disruption in doing what he did. Jclemens (talk) 07:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
WP:POINT is when you're actually disrupting the wikipedia by actually doing something you disagree with to prove the point. Following the letter and maybe spirit of the rules is to be admired; trying to keep every single article because it might, someday, be reliably sourced, even though it isn't at the moment (which is more where some of the ARS are coming from) really isn't on. We need rules in the Wikipedia, they minimise arguments.- Wolfkeeper 06:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Please don't make this about the ARS. This is about Jclemens abusing his administrative tools. AniMate 06:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Actually, no. We're here because I requested a review of my remediation of User:Snottywong's disruption. The fact that some want to focus this on me isn't particularly unexpected, though. Jclemens (talk) 07:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This isn't the first time Jclemens has used tools unwisely to "defend" the ARS (of which I am a member). He should revert and be asked not to use his tools in this area again except in cases of obvious and clear disruption. Verbal chat 07:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
This was obvious and clear disruption. Again, I'm not an ARS member and never will be. Jclemens (talk) 07:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Claiming that you are not a member, when you are so closely tied to the ARS, does not make you uninvolved and is not particularly convincing. Please justify the clear and obvious disruption with diffs in the section you created below. Verbal chat
I'll agree there was obvious and clear disruption... from you Jclemens. His AfD votes were supported by policy, and you have zero support for your actions. Undo them now, please. AniMate 07:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't object to someone else reinserting those edits, but if you want me to do them myself, I need to be convinced that the edits are themselves not disruptive, not merely that my actions were out of proportion to the disruption. That may seem like hairsplitting, but I won't re-do edits that I personally believe are disruptive. Jclemens (talk) 07:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Time to start answering some questions[edit]

I've directed questions in the above thread to a number of users. If anyone would care to convince me that my actions were incorrect, the way to do that is by engaging in civil discourse. I would welcome it if any editors, and not simply the original editors to whom those questions were addressed would focus on my position that Snottywong's edits were in bad faith and disruptive. Once his actions have been appropriately evaluated by the community, then we can look at what I did in response to them. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please justify removing AFD !votes that had valid and relevant rationales. Verbal chat 07:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
(ec) The edits were expressly made in bad faith, as evidenced by the original version of the userbox under discussion. I rolled them back as disruptive and explained my rationale to the affected editor. Jclemens (talk) 07:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I did not check all of the diffs, but [2], [3], [4] & [5] do show an irresponsible use of rollback. Rollback is used to revert vandalism and vandalism only. The edits you reverted are clearly not vandalism. The Wikipedia definition of vandalism is very narrow; and in these 4 cases you silenced Snottywong's comments on the AfD. That is disruptive editing, as your edits represented a damage to open discourse. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 07:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
You appear to be operating from a position that those were legitimate edits, which I do not. I have never called them vandalism, I have called them disruptive. Jclemens (talk) 07:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Under what criteria is it disruptive? I see a valid !vote with a proper rationale. If adding {{ARSnote}} is disruptive to you, you discuss with the user. You do not rollback every edit the user makes. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 07:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
"Rollback should be used only for reverts that are self-explanatory – such as removing obvious vandalism; to revert content in your own user space; or to revert edits by banned users who are not allowed to edit."[1] The edits you reverted do not fall under that description. Jafeluv (talk) 07:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
You're referring to the user-level rollback policy. I rolled back his disruptive actions as an administrator who was uninvolved with the AfD's in question. Is there an assertion there that all administrator use of the "rollback" button is restricted by WP:ROLLBACK? I've never understood that to be the expectation. Jclemens (talk) 07:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The principle is the same. Do not wikilawyer. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 07:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Umm, what? Of course the policy applies to administrators as well. Where did you get the idea that it didn't? Jafeluv (talk) 07:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think a claim that rules don't apply to admins is going to go down very well. Verbal chat 07:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
This is why RfA can't have nice things. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 07:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I find it amusing that the guy succeded 80-2-3 > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 07:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
wat Jafeluv (talk) 08:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
HAHA, sorry, my bad. I meant this. Still amusing though, 77/2/0. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 08:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

For reference, the reverted AfD !votes can be seen here. Jclemens also warned the user on their talk page, saying "Were I not already involved with you on one discussion, I would have already blocked you for disruptive editing." Jafeluv (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

To answer a question you posed to me (So, how much more uninvolved do you really want me to be in the face of reactive disruption?) If you're to involved to block, you're too involved to do mass rollback. I want you actually uninvolved. AniMate 07:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I have yet to see anything which justifies Jclemens actions, and he has admitted to being involved in a dispute with this editor about AFD. Jclemens, please stop this and don't do anything like it again. Verbal chat 07:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
"Stop" what? I've not done anything related to the user or dispute in question since I raised the issue here. Jclemens (talk) 07:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
By "stop" I mean undo your actions and either apologise or withdraw gracefully, and not repeat such disruptive tool use in relation to the ARS ever again. Verbal chat 07:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
That's an odd usage of stop. I will apologize when and if I am ever convinced that my actions were wrong in that Snottywong's behaviour was not disruptive. So, if you want an apology for him... by all means, address the topic of his actions, rather than my response. Jclemens (talk) 07:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Have you noticed how much support your actions have? Unless you are able to show how each one was disruptive, please undo your rollbacks (which also broke rollback rules). Verbal chat 07:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The rollbacks have already been reverted by myself and others, except one that had already been closed. I've asked Sandstein to revisit the closure, just in case it would have affected the result. Jafeluv (talk) 08:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This would be a while different issue if Snottywong had just gone ahead and voted delete on all the articles while giving simple reasons. However, looking at his edits, it looks like he indeed did look into the subject and voted reasonably. His votes were, in my view, clearly not vandalism or disruptive. He was participating the the AfD process legitimately. Regarding his userbox, I believe his changing of it after receiving a notice shows that he is acting in good faith and has no intention to disrupt Wikipedia. Netalarmtalk 07:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, there has been no evidence presented of any wrongdoing by Snottywong, whereas Jclemens misuse of rollback has not drawn any support. Verbal chat 07:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing others' comments in an AfD is not a step to take lightly. Even !votes cast by sockpuppets are typically just stricken, with an explanation. Removing !votes cast by someone whose philosophy you disagree with is a very troubling lapse of judgement. I understand that you were concerned about the userbox, and starting the MfD was not an inappropriate response. However, moving on to mass rollback -- apparently without awaiting any response from the editor in question or any answer to your "Is this disruptive?" question -- is very questionable. That you still do not appear to believe you've done anything questionable is... baffling, frankly. This isn't good conduct for an admin. Shimeru 09:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


Closed - proposer has agreed to give Jclemens more time to reflect.

Jclemens is asked not to use his admin or rollback tools in disputes related to AFD or the ARS, unless it is clear action against vandalism. Verbal chat 08:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Reluctant Support. First the user has to acknowledge that rules do apply to admins. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 08:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • wholly unneeded kneejerk reaction. Spartaz Humbug! 08:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
    This isn't the first time Jclemens has done this, and I'm not proposing a desysop. He has failed to justify his actions at all. Claiming that rules don't apply to admins s going to far. Verbal chat 08:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Spartaz has asked I give jclemens more time as this is out of character. I don't see a problem with this. Hopefully it can be resolved. Verbal chat 08:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - foolish proposal. The amount of discussion here is inadequate making any such proposal premature in the absence of evidence that he has continued to use rollback inappropriately. The user has expressed a desire to be persuaded that the edits were not disruptive rather than a desire to continue rollbacking in that fashion in such discussions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
    • ah foolish, we meet again - and again unnecessary. He has not expressed such a desire, he has stated that he is correct and he would do the same again. Unless I've missed him saying he wouldn't, in which case I'd withdraw my support for my proposal. What is your view of jclemens actions here? Verbal chat 08:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Jeclemens inappropriately used rollback; that doesn't mean we shouldn't give him an opportunity to be voluntarily compelled by the community via RfC/U rather than involuntarily through a formal restriction. I said this proposal is foolish due to its premature nature. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose He still thinks what he did was right. AniMate 08:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • For the record, I mean oppose. What you're proposing should go without saying. His actions are not acceptable here. This doesn't go far enough. AniMate 08:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we ratchet down the hysteria?[edit]

Okay, we all know that Jclemen's use of rollback was wrong and that DRV is going to overturn and relist any AFD closed as keep if it has been tainted by having a vote struck, but am I the only one who thinks this is wholly uncharacteristic for an experienced, sensible and very well balanced editor? Please can we step back and give Jclemens space to review his actions and hopefully self correct without the pressure that this bout of ANI hysteria has injected into this dispute? I can't help worrying that something is affecting Jclemens and that we need to avoid making it worse. Spartaz Humbug! 08:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

He decided to rollback 20 or so edits by a user who didn't do anything wrong. If he wasn't an administrator, his rollback would be removed. Administrators shouldn't be held to a different standard. AniMate 08:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Not arguing at all that he was right in his actions. Spartaz Humbug! 08:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
In fact, administrators should have a higher standard. Admins are trusted by the community as a whole, whereas rollbackers only need the trust of 1 admin. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 08:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I think you mean support above, but anyway I'm willing to give jclemens more time to cool off and then explain his actions. Verbal chat 08:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I should have phrased that as a question, apologies to AniMate. Verbal chat 08:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
No worries. AniMate 08:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
(EC)I appreciate your willingness to stand back a bit and give Jclemens some space. Ratcheting down here will help and there are plenty of DR options available if given them space to think doesn't help. Anyway, thanks again for listening and being reasonable. Spartaz Humbug! 08:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, let's give him some rest. But I would support a temporary suspension on rollback on AfD, at least until this matter is resolved. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 08:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Put it this way; if he does it again before the matter is resolved, a more serious remedy would be considered. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, any repetition would probably lead to summary desysopping which is a significant enough act that we shouldn't allow the ANI lynchmob to add extra pressure on Jclemens that might further erode their good-judgement. That's why I'm asking for space. Spartaz Humbug! 08:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is looking for his head, but an admission that this was a wrong action would go a long way to shutting this down. If he's unwilling after some time to reflect... AniMate 08:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I think this was a very serious breach of the trust we place in administrators to commit to the principles of Wikipedia. Reverting !votes on AFD is implicitly assuming bad faith, and in the situation there was very little justification. Rollback should only be used against vandalism, and it was simply cowboy adminship to resort to it in this situation. If Jclemens is unwilling to apologise or at least understand that he has made a mistake here, I think his position in the community should be re-evaluated. Thanks. Claritas § 12:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Can I ask what the people posting to this ANI hope to achieve? Going on at length here is likely to ratchet up the drama level. If there is actionable evidence of misuse of admin rights, JClemens should be subjected to a request for comment in the first instance. Stifle (talk) 12:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • (And I'm not saying this because Jclemens's actions were appropriate; they weren't, but a long dramatic discussion here helps nobody.) Stifle (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Part of the problem is that if this weren't an admin they would have had their rollback rights removed pronto, and there wouldn't be any more drama. The appearance of this is that being an admin means you are protected if you misuse tools. Quantpole (talk) 12:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
      • No arguments from me on that one. But if it is desired that Jclemens should be subject to a sanction, RFC or RFAR is the appropriate place for this. Stifle (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • (EC) It looks like User:Jafeluv has already reversed all the rollbacks, so that part of the issue is dealt with. The problem with it being done at all is two-fold: first, as already well noted, this was a wholly inappropriate use of rollback. If Jclemens felt Snottywong's AfD comments were disruptive, he should have left a note or struct them, but only if he had been an uninvolved editor. Considering the back and forth between these two at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up, it was wholly inappropriate for Jclemens to take action against Snottywong in any way at all. Rather, he should have done what he did finally do here, leave a note (though far more neutrally noted and with a better dose of WP:AGF) here so that a neutral admin could review the situation. As for his complaints against Snottywong, I think Jclemens did over react and let his issue from the AfD spill over into his view of the edits. Like others, I reviewed Snottywong's comments, and all were grounded in policy and showed that he did actually look at the articles and issues in question. This is not a newer editor doing rampant deletes or keeps, and he wasn't doing a copy/paste blast. The userbox, while amusing, was probably a bad idea while in the middle of doing AfD reviews, but I can at least understand Snottywong's frustration. Some basic civil discourse would have likely gone a long way here versus rolling back and then MfDing the box. I agree, the hysteria is over the top and it seems several folks calling for rollback rights to be removed do not realize that it is technically impossible without desysopping (which most of the same folks seem to agree is going too far). I think the main thing needed now is for Jclemens to take a step back (hopefully with a good night of sleep) and see how his actions seem inappropriate, admit the error, and move on. My non-adminny view. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The fact that Jclemens continues to not admit the error is what is causing this discussion to continue and escalate. The fact that he performed the rollbacks is one thing, and could be chalked up to a mistake or emotions getting out of hand. The fact that he is an admin on Wikipedia, and he still cannot see or admit that he did something wrong is what is truly troubling. I find it hard to believe that an admin can't understand that a userbox is an opinion. It might be humorous, it might be totally fictional or false. You can't base your actions as an admin on someone's userbox. If I create a userbox that says "This user likes to kill infants by twisting their heads until they pop off", then you can't use your CheckUser permissions to find out my IP address, call up my ISP and find out my address, and call the police to come arrest me. Userboxes aren't evidence of anything (even if they are poorly worded and are suggestive of an admission of bad faith edits), especially when there is other evidence which suggests that my edits are not in bad faith. SnottyWong talk 16:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • To be honest I think that the ARS system is a primary cause of this. It is actually a form of canvas, you're inviting people to an AFD to vote keep; and it pushes the idea that you shouldn't ever delete anything. That's not... it... we have standards. We have to have standards. The ARS needs to be watered down, I agree that if articles can be rewritten or improved then they should do that before the AFD closes, but the guys from ARS (including Jclemens in the particular AFD that triggered this) are fairly consistently voting to keep articles that have no reliable sources at all; on the grounds that it 'might' be referenced later. On that basis absolutely any unreferenced article can be kept forever. We're supposed to be summarising reliable sources not unreliable sources. That needs to stop right here, right now.- Wolfkeeper 17:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


ALSO SEE Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jclemens

  • Being somewhat new to the world of admins abusing their tools, I have not yet had the privilege of contributing to a RfC or RfArb. I would like the opinion of other uninvolved users here as to whether a discussion on this matter should be started at WP:RFC/U. It appears that this behavior is a pattern with Jclemens. To be clear, everyone makes mistakes. However, admins in particular need to be able to realize and admit when they've made a mistake, and they should be capable of apologizing and fixing their mistakes. Especially when 50 people tell them directly that they've made a mistake. The pattern that I'm referring to is that Jclemens appears to be unusually resistant to admitting that he has made a mistake. He generally responds with relentless arguments and wikilawyering. A review of some of the past ANI's involving him show a fairly clear pattern: [6] [7] [8]. My feeling is that Jclemens has not yet learned from his mistake (and even still, at this time, has not yet admitted any wrongdoing with respect to this situation). This troubles me. Not because I need an admission of guilt or an apology from him for my ego or for my fragile emotions, but because I truly believe that this is behavior unbecoming of someone who is trusted with admin tools. Please let me know if you think this behavior warrants further discussion at RFC/U, or if starting such a discussion would be out of line or unnecessary in this case. Thanks. SnottyWong talk 18:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
No point. It would be quite simple for an admin to say to jclemens that due to their misuse of rollback, they should not use that feature for the next x weeks/months. As I have said above, if they were not an admin, there would be no discussion, as rollback rights would have already been removed. Forcing people to jump through hoops like RFC/U over something like this simply shows that the admins commenting here are not interested in fairness. They should treat admins the same as those without the flashy bits, or not be an admin. Quantpole (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
However pure your intentions it doesnt seem unreasonable to have decided your delete voting spree along with the confrontational user box might have been disruptive or at least likely to cause a WP:Battle. Jclemens likes a peaceful accademic environment, including when that means going against the interests of the ARS. for example a few weeks back he deleted a thread on the ARS board advising that a squad member was in trouble on ANI. With hindsight, Jclemens seems to have been wrong to roll back your edits, but as you say everyone makes mistakes. As fellow volunteers it doesnt seem either best practice or collegial to insist on an apology unless we've been personally insulted. It especially doesnt seem helpfull to start time consuming proceedings against an admin who is clearly overall a massive net positive. Please take note of what Spartaz has to say, he isnt exactly known as an inclusionist. :-) FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
To be clear, I don't require an apology from Jclemens. However, I believe as an admin, he should be capable of admitting that he made a mistake, and fixing that mistake. As it stands, Jclemens continues to argue that he was right, in the face of all of the admins and users who have told him otherwise. Another admin had to revert his rollbacks, because he was unwilling to revert them himself. It is this reluctance to admit one's mistakes which troubles me, and if there is a clear pattern of this behavior, then should this person really continue to be an admin? That is the question I would like to get comment on in an RfC, but being unfamiliar with the process, I'm unsure if it would be appropriate. However, I'm leaning towards starting an RfC. SnottyWong talk 21:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
If you believe it warrants an RfC, then I would say go ahead. That's what RfC is there for. Before you do, though, you should be aware that, aside from the time and attention involved, you'll also be inviting close scrutiny of your own edits. Sometimes these things boomerang. Best to know what you're getting into. Shimeru 21:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
@FeydHuxtable - A new hater This crossed the line. Talk about WP:Battle. The title of the section says it all. - Josette (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Barring some sort of intervention from ArbCom, an RfC/u is the next step here. Since there has been virtually no support for Jclemens actions (aside from FeydHuxtable, an extremely loyal ARS member) I don't think you have to worry about any boomerang effect here. AniMate 21:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I didn't have a problem with that discussion. I thought it was kinda funny actually. SnottyWong talk 21:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
(EC) did creating User:Milowent/userboxes/ARSRevolution in obvious direct response to the current MfD leaning towards keep, their own remarks in the AfD that apparently started this conflict between JC and Snotty, and leaving this note on the Snotty's talk page[9]. That said, honestly, she is not the worse for promoting the Battle mentality of ARS...if any RfC is needed, it needs to be in dealing with ARS as a whole. The canvassing (both on and offsite), constant personal attacks, battle mentality, etc etc. Far too many are making such remarks as that, that people think it is "more fun" to delete articles than edit them, and other such crap. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Rollback has the potential to be abused in a content dispute. The ability can be granted or removed by any admin. Therefore, it is seen as an "easy-come, easy-go" tool, and there are explicit guidelines and limitations surrounding its use. In many ways, it is like Twinkle or other generally available tools - it doesn't give you the ability to do anything that any other ordinary editor cannot do; it just makes those actions more convenient. This is rollback, as it is seen by the majority of Wikipedians. For admins, things are different, because rollback is bundled with the real tools - the ones that do things that non-admins cannot do, such as block editors and delete articles. In this case, it's very unfortunate that Jclemens used rollback, because it has distracted discussion about what he did with considerations about how he did it. What is the difference between what would have happened if he had not used rollback, and where we are now? The edits were, after all, reverted by ordinary clicking on ordinary "undo" buttons. The difference is, of course, that people are calling for the other tools to be taken away. And of course if a non-admin had done this they would have lost the rollback bit. Any admin could have removed it, and a week later any other admin could have restored it in good faith. That isn't an option here, and we shouldn't be treating this situation as if it was. Two good solutions to this sort of situation - which is by no means unique to this admin - might be to unbundle rollback from the admin bit, such that it truly becomes an easy-come easy-go low-power tool that can be taken away from admins just like anyone else, or to recognise that the technical details are less important than community consensus, and impose a ban. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't say rollback per se was the problem. I think the choice to revert (removing others' comments from an AfD) was the primary wrong. Use of "admin" tools to do so might've been an additional lapse in judgment, but this isn't a situation where using "undo" instead would've made things okay. Shimeru 01:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Unbundling rollback would be a good idea, but until then I don't see why you need community bans to limit the use of rollback by administrators. All that needs to happen is another admin says "Due to your misuse of the tool you are not allowed to use it for (however long)". That way admins are treated the same as ordinary users. No need for extensive discussions or anything. Quantpole (talk) 07:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Jclemens' Responses[edit]

In this section, I will post three different sections dealing with what I perceive to be the three outstanding questions:

1) Can administrators use rollback on non-vandalism edits?
2) Were Snottywong's actions disruptive?
3) Was I sufficiently impartial to be addressing the perceived disruption?

Comments are welcome, but I'm going to be responding in stages, and it may be some time between posts. Jclemens (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Administrator use of Rollback on non-vandalism edits[edit]

Resolved: New admin school page altered to avoid further violations of rollback policy. Admins are subject to WP:ROLLBACK like everyone else. - Promethean 18:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's what the current instructions are for the Administrator use of rollback.

  • Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback “Conventionally, administrative rollback is only used to revert simple vandalism or large amounts of mistaken edits (such as when a bot malfunctions). Using rollback to revert conventional good-faith edits is frowned upon because it leaves no useful message to the editor you are reverting and implies you thought their edit worth nothing more than the treatment of a vandal.”

“The "rollback" button also appears on the "Contributions" page associated with each editor. If you have examined a number of individual edits by an editor and determined that they all deserve(d) to be removed (for example, they all consisted of inserting the same WikiSpam), you may decide to roll back all recent edits by this editor. This can be done using the "rollback" buttons on the editor's contributions page.”

  • Help:Reverting#Advanced_features “if you use the rollback feature other than for vandalism (for example, because undo is impractical due to the large page size), it is courteous to leave an explanation on the article's talk page or on the talk page of the user, whose edit(s) you have reverted.”

At the same time, it's clear this topic has been a point of discussion for the last several years. This smattering of past discussions seems vaguely representative, and it definitely shows that while “administrators must only use rollback on vandalism!” is one position, it is not universally held.

Thus, those who assert that administrators are held to the same standard of usage (vandalism only) as non-administrators clearly have some backing for that assertion. The instructions, as currently written, do not prohibit my actions.

At the same time, it is clear that those speaking up in this thread believe that the actions I've taken do not mesh with current expectation of administrator rollback use. I would encourage those who believe that current instructions to administrators on rollback use (the top two links, above) differ from expected norms to modify those pages, perhaps starting an RfC as appropriate. I, as any other administrator, am incapable of reading the community's mind, and encourage full and prompt updates to relevant pages when the community's mind has indeed changed. Jclemens (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't wish to wikilawyer; however, Wikipedia:Rollback feature does not discriminate between admins and rollbackers; the fact that the lead reads

The rollback feature is a very fast method of undoing blatantly unproductive edits, such as vandalism and nonsense. The name derives from the data management term rollback, meaning an operation that reverses the effect of changes made to a database.

Rollback is available automatically to all 1,727 Wikipedia administrators, and there are 3,489 accounts with the rollbacker permission. In total, 5,216 accounts have rollback rights.

leads me to understand that all users who can use the tool are expected to follow the relevant guideline, especially Wikipedia:Rollback feature#When to use rollback & Wikipedia:Rollback feature#When not to use rollback (in the latter, by the way, there's a reference to the fact that admins can't have it removed, short of being desysopped). I don't wish to appear naive, but, since admins are just editors who can use more tools than the average Wikipedian, I don't think that they can be expected to follow a different set of rules. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 22:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree that the instructions to administrators on how and when Rollback can be used differ from those given to all users. While it's reasonable to infer that WP:ROLLBACK applies to administrators, there are plenty of other indications that it has not been universally so held, including the explicit directions on administrative use which allow far more leeway. Jclemens (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
In other words, the rules which everyone else has to abide by don't apply to admins. It's nice of you to say so so plainly. Quantpole (talk) 07:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Have they ever?  Giacomo  07:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Well no. But usually there is some sort of pretence that they're the same as the rest of us, just with a "mop and bucket". Quantpole (talk) 07:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I take no stance on the rightness or wrongness of Rollback rules being less restrictive in the admin use. It's there, and I didn't put it there. If you want to change those admin instructions to match the user instructions, that's your prerogative. Jclemens (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
So you are saying that you were using rollback in this instance in an 'adminny' way? But right at the top of this page you seem to be asking for input because you were involved with the user. Isn't there some rule about taking admin action against people you are involved with?
It seems that there is clear consensus that you did misuse rollback in this instance. Simple question - if another admin were to prohibit you from using rollback for a period of time would you comply with that? If not, why not? Quantpole (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
If you want to propose that as a solution, I will read with interest the community's consensus. The problem with that as a solution, though, is I've already said I wouldn't use rollback in the same circumstance again, so such a proposal would be inherently punitive, rather than preventative. The issue of involvement is a different sub-topic. Jclemens (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
It is entirely the same as when an 'ordinary' rollbacker misuses the tool. It is taken away until they show that they are OK to use it. There is very rarely even any drama about it. Why should admins be treated any differently? In any case it is just a tool, and not being able to use it is hardly punishment, easy come, easy go and all that. Quantpole (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Jclemens, instead of wikilawyering, why not just actually read WP:ROLLBACK, which clearly states: "The rollback feature is a very fast method of undoing blatantly unproductive edits, such as vandalism and nonsense." as well as "Rollback should be used only for reverts that are self-explanatory – such as removing obvious vandalism; to revert content in your own user space; or to revert edits by banned users who are not allowed to edit." There is no ambiguity there. You can policy shop all you want, but it won't change the clear wording on WP:ROLLBACK. SnottyWong talk 16:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

To avoid this kind of mis-interpretation in future I have altered the Wikipedia:New_admin_school/Rollback so that it includes "Use of rollback by admins is subject to the rollback policy which among other things, explains when rollback can be used and when it cannot." The rollback policy makes no distinguishment between admins and users and there has been no consensus to change that in the past.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't it also mention that compliance with this is unenforceable and therefore voluntary?--Cube lurker (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
No, WP:ROLLBACK is enforceable as it's what WP:ARBCOM is for and are more than willing to do.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Do they know this?--Cube lurker (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Not that I'm suggesting this is the case; however, it would also be possible for the community to impose a rollback ban on an admin, thereby restraining them from using the tool, if said admin made an habit of abusing it. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 22:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Snottywong's AfD edits[edit]

At the time User:Snottywong first commented in the AfD, he made reference to the ARS. The article had been tagged for rescue by another editor and Snottywong's immediately prior edit was to the AfD of another page that had been tagged for rescue. As you might guess from the titles, 010 Editor was the first article on the list of articles flagged for rescue, 50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up the second.

At this point, it's reasonable to suspect that Snottywong, who has never been previously involved with the article, only participated to (as he would later admit) “[attempt] to counteract the implicit canvassing by the Article Rescue Squadron by regularly reviewing articles tagged for rescue, and voting to delete most of them.” No biggie—he's not being disruptive at that point.

Well, everything is proceeding along just fine. Snottywong engages in some typical AfD shenanigans, attempting to put words into other editor's mouths, denies the reliability and sufficiency of reliable sources, and whatnot. While annoying, it happens all the time, and sources tend to win out. At that point, Keep !votes clarly outnumbered deletes.

Later, I notice a new thread on my watchlist. This prompts me to investigate Snottywong's contribution history, where it is clear that he has systematically gone through and !voted delete on only articles tagged for rescue, with a single keep vote for a no-brainer keep (Upstate New York), and then proceeded to crow his derision in a userbox, which has since been modified after I nominated it for deletion.

Snottywong's spate of editing to AfD's constituted disruption, by his own admission. Cynics may well note that his only “crime” was admitting he intended to “counter-canvas” the ARS. His own userbox, since toned down somewhat, explicitly admitted bad faith by both accusing the ARS of canvassing and explicitly stating that his intent was to influence the deletion process by only commenting on {{rescue}}-tagged articles. Thus, no matter that his rationales were relatively reasonable, he fundamentally violated WP:HONESTY by giving presumably valid deletion rationales that had nothing to do with his actual motivation expressed in the userbox. That constitutes disruptive editing, in my interpretation and action. Jclemens (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Given that you'd seen that and drawn those conclusions, Jclemens, what would've been the most appropriate response?—S Marshall T/C 23:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Given the reaction of the community to what I did do, had I to do it over again, I would have simply removed the non-chronologically placed {{ARSnote}}s and manually marked his edits with an {{spa}}-like note in each affected documenting his pretextual voting. Jclemens (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, it sounds to me like Jclemens has learned from this, which means we're already in one of the top 1% of AN/I threads for achievement.—S Marshall T/C 00:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
        • I'm not completely convinced. So would Jclemens be happy if all of the people that frequented ARS had their votes labelled with "an {{spa}}-like note" to indicate their pretextual voting. To be honest that would probably be fairer than what he's proposing, a fair number of their votes are along the lines of "This article is currently without reliable references, even though people have looked, but could be referenced some time before hell freezes over, maybe, so I'm voting KEEP!!!!!". The fact that they're a member of a group of (largely) inclusionists also needs to be considered perhaps? I mean if they're on the up-and-up and not effectively vote stuffing they wouldn't mind, right?- Wolfkeeper 03:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
          • Absolutely! If anyone uses a {{rescue}} as a flag to get votes without improvement, that's a misuse of the ARS. Now, the ARS are pretty much guaranteed to be inclusionists, so if one stops by, improves the article, and then MORE stop by and say "great job!" to the first guy and !vote keep... that's fair game. Article Rescue (whether or not done by ARS) is for taking worthwhile articles that don't initially meet standards, and doing the actual work of improving and sourcing the article such that by the end of the AfD discussion, the nominator's rationale no longer makes sense because the objections have been answered by improving the article. Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
        • Sorry, but how is labelling a long time contributor a single purpose account a positive way to handle the original situation? Could you imagine the uproar if every ARS member was labelled {{spa}} at AfD? Quantpole (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
          • Well, we're going to achieve a small but genuine change in behaviour here, at least on Jclemens' part. That's progress in my book and it's more than I expect from the average AN/I thread. The ongoing !vote-stacking issues at AfD have been happening for many years, they aren't confined to the ARS, and they aren't Jclemens' fault. There should probably be a separate discussion about the problem of editors who only ever !vote one way and the potential use of spa-like tags on these editors, but I hardly think AN/I is the right venue. The immediate concern was to prevent unilateral mass rollback of AfD !votes and I think we can be certain Jclemens will not do that again.—S Marshall T/C 13:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
          • While you're probably correct, I can only speak for my own reaction: if an ARS member were to have a userbox that said "I go to rescue-tagged articles and make up a cool-sounding keep rationale on all of their AfDs" or the equivalent, I would expect any admin should be free to tag or remove those !votes, because they, like Snottywong, have admitted bad faith and gaming the system. Jclemens (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
            • Except pretty much no one here but you thinks there was bad faith or gaming of the system going on. Quantpole (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Jclemens, my userbox was one piece of evidence that arguably could have pointed towards bad faith edits. However, there were many other pieces of evidence that pointed towards good faith edits. WP:AGF would direct you to assume that the userbox was simply worded poorly, and perhaps start a discussion with me on my talk page before taking any action. It's clear that my AfD !votes were not disruptive, nor were they vandalism. I believe you actions can be characterized by WP:COWBOY, and were likely rooted in an emotional reaction you were having regarding the argument we were having on a previous AfD. Thus, you have violated WP:AGF, WP:INVOLVED, and WP:ROLLBACK. SnottyWong talk 16:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

    • Haha! Yes, that is truly damming! I encourage everyone to look (I assume CW was being sarcastic?) I see a neutrally worded post and then an apology when he is told it could be considered canvassing. Also, generally what happens off WP is irrelevant. Verbal chat 10:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
      • I see the ARS is finally getting off of their ARSes in an attempt to gang up on me and attack my credibility to save one of their own. Yes, Col. Warden, an isolated incident over 18 months ago (which has never been repeated since) is a great distraction from the serious discussions regarding an experienced admin who routinely violates WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. I'm sure that if the tables were turned and the admin in question was not a member/sympathizer of ARS, your comments would be quite different. In fact, I'm going to close the RFC/U right now in light of this new evidence which clearly invalidates my entire complaint. I appreciate the attempt to sling mud in defense of one of your inclusionist cohorts, CW, but I don't think this one is going to stick to the wall. Gimme a break... SnottyWong talk 14:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Involved, or not?[edit]

WP:INVOLVED is without a doubt the least clear of the guidelines at issue. Seriously—go read it now.

What are “cases in which they have been involved”? Does the fact that Snottywong and I disagreed in an AfD prohibit me from reverting his disruptive edits to entirely unrelated AfDs? Apparently, some Wikipedians think so, but the last time I reverted another admin's AfD closure on the basis that he had been INVOLVED with me in a prior dispute, I was chastised for invoking INVOLVED in that fashion. Really: every time I think I know what the limits of INVOLVED are, I'm told I'm wrong by someone. I would genuinely appreciate it if that section of the policy were discussed and clarified.

My fundamental reasoning was that Snottywong's participation in an AfD in which I was already a participant did not restrict my ability to correct his disruptive actions in other venues. The concept that an editor can start a dispute with an administrator as a way to prevent that administrator from taking corrective action is WP:BEANS material, but that appears to be what many editors are suggesting. The pretextual !votes in ongoing AfDs were clearly in a position to cause (admittedly minor and non-urgent) damage to the encyclopedia by contributing to presumably otherwise encyclopedic material being deleted, and called for a remedy.

I intentionally avoided the most straightforward immediate solution to Snottywong's disruption—blocking him—in part on the basis that that would affect his ability to participate in the AfD in which we'd been disputing notability. (The rest of the rationale, somewhat ironically, involved my lack of desire for drama that I anticipated might follow such a block, as well as the fact that he was not currently making disruptive edits. I intentionally chose rollback as a least invasive method to repair the disruption) Likewise, I considered and intentionally avoided remedies, such as the single-administrator-imposed topic ban, which have had poor community support in the past.

Overall, I think the suggestion that once an administrator is INVOLVED with an editor to the bare extent of disagreeing in an AfD, that administrator becomes forbidden to engage that editor in an unrelated corrective action is not supported by the current wording of WP:INVOLVED, which states in part “Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about communal norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'.”

Since INVOLVED is the most ephemeral of the policies, I accept the community's feedback that I should refrain from fixing such disruption myself in the future, with the caveat that the appropriate policy section really needs to be clarified to encompass current consensus. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This is disingenuous. While I strongly disagree with the notion of "involvement armour" used by disruptive editors to avoid sanction simply by getting into fights with as many people as possible so as to be able to shout "previous" whenever challenged on future behaviour, in this case you had an obvious recent dispute with the editor, were privy to the thread on ARS talk which noted the actions in question, and didn't behave in an uninvolved manner: rather, you reflexively "defended" the AfDs in question by rolling back (not striking) the comments in question regardless of the points raised without previously discussing it with him. The damage done by leaving said edits in question in place until your suggested course of action had been raised with genuinely uninvolved parties would have been minimal, which in itself obviates the need to have used rollback. On a further note, you must have known that as one of the few explicitly inclusionist admins regularly involved in AfD as a commenter (only DGG comes to mind as a comparable figure) this would bring a ton of scrutiny on you, which should have been an additional cause for pause. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I acted to defend the integrity of the AfD process by striking self-admitted bad-faith !votes, not to defend the ARS. Obviously, hindsight bears out your observations that my actions have been presumed to be bad faith. At no point in this discussion haveI seen Snottywong actually dispute my assertion that his !votes were in bad faith, or more relevantly, that at the time his userbox was created, a reasonable man would have concluded that they clearly appeared to be bad faith. Thanks for comparing me to DGG... although I think he's a far better contributor and admin than I. Jclemens (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I can see the words "...which proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that I have not been editing in bad faith" in the first paragraph of SnottyWong's ANI post. As for the rest of it, I think this rather firmly points out why the repeated suggestions back in the day that those opposed to ARS's actions start an "article deletion squadron" were laughed at: because the project's inclusionists would take such a thing as a license to assume bad faith of people. That's what you've done here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
This is not an excuse for your actions ZacharyLassiter (talk) 09:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
You're right. I don't make excuses. I explain what I was thinking at the time. Jclemens (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Jclemens, you were absolutely involved with me. Your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up exhibit signs of anger and frustration, indicating you were getting emotional. It's not hard to jump to the conclusion that you were frstrated by our argument, and by reverting my !votes you had found a seemingly valid way to get retribution. However, using admin tools for retribution is a serious violation of the trust the community has in you to use those tools appropriately. SnottyWong talk 16:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Jclemens, "I acted to defend the integrity of the AfD process by striking self-admitted bad-faith !votes" Snottywong is a user, just like any other, he is entitled to his say. Now if he has a userbox saying he votes to delete most of the ARS articles, that is not an admission of bad faith. Rathor that is an admission that the user feels that its in the best interest of Wikipedia to delete most of those articles, however there are exceptions. You didn't defend the integrity of AfD, you blew it out of the water and abused your admin privleges in the process.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it's been made clear that my interpretation was far from widely held. When someone takes an action based on their good-faith perception of a situation, which is not upheld by the community, that's generally considered a mistake, rather than abuse. Jclemens (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
And when that same person relentlessly argues that what they did was not wrong (despite dozens of independent comments to the contrary), that's generally considered denial, as in "Denial is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence." SnottyWong talk 20:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, how about you both step away from wikipedia space for awhile? Unomi (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

JClemens was involved not just due to a dispute with the editor, but because of his membership (though he refuses to add his name) and very active support of the ARS. He also says above "I intentionally chose rollback as a least invasive method to repair the disruption" What disruption? He still does not get that there was no disruption until he broke rollback rules and acted in an administrative capacity in a subject which he was involved. He also calls snottywangs !vote "pretextual" another clear failure of WP:AGF, especially now this has been shown clearly not to be the case. Or does JClemens have any evidence to back up his bad faith accusations? Verbal chat 16:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Overreacting is bad[edit]

SnottyWong overreacted to Jclemens actions. Then Jclemens overreacted to SnottyWong's actions. Now ANI is overreacting to joke section titles like "A new hater". This looks like Conflict escalation. How about dropping the sticks and walking away from the matter. If Snottywong makes clearly wrong AFD !votes then we can discuss this again. (Meanwhile, Snottywong has opened Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jclemens, someone please make a statement saying that the dispute has been brought out of proportion, so I can endorse it.) --Enric Naval (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, overreacting is bad. But then so is stuffing an article with dubious references in the hopes that no one will check them, so that it will be kept at AFD, which it now appears that Jclemens was doing with article in question. Jclemens apparently overreacted when he was more or less found out by SnottyWong. And the majority of of the keep votes in the AFD are ARS members. None of this is filling me with warm fuzzies.- Wolfkeeper 05:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Um, no. Every reference is legit and I have accurately characterized each one in the article and discussion. Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Man, Wolfie, you're giving me a bad trip with all your negatively tinged comments about ARS. No matter, I'm off to vote keep on articles like Milowent's High School Lunch Schedule (2001), because its my impression that you think that's what editors who like to improve content do. I feel bad now that I ever noticed Snotty's dumb 'ol userbox and commented on it at ARS talk with the (intended to be humorous) "new hater" comment. Some people get more upset than I do about sentiments like Snotty's about being in favor of deleting all possibly marginal content. I take a more long term view, because from what i've seen, deleted verifiable content almost always returns to the project in some other article (or even in the same article recreated), so deletion is not very efficient at improving the project. We add 10x more articles per day to the project than we delete, so this is inevitable. JC was doing a good job with that article, regardless of whether the consensus ends up deleting it. There was no evil cabal to save an article about an admittedly vacuous 2005 TV special on former child stars. However, I have started an article on Gary Coleman's first feature film, User:Milowent/On the Right Track, which I could not believe was not already covered. It received widespread press coverage, including reviews from Gene Siskel and Janet Maslin. All are invited to participate and drop this drama. Its a funny movie. Gary Coleman stars as an orphan who lives in a locker in a train station. Who wouldn't love that?--Milowent (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that adding refs you don't seem to have read is a form of lying to the reader.- Wolfkeeper 06:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I read every single ref I added. Pretty sure I read every single one which was already there. I have Lexis-Nexis access, which means I can access content that Google cannot. On what basis would you presume that I'd added anything without reading it? Jclemens (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
If you did, how come it was deleted, and how come multiple people (other than SnottyWong) in the review indicated that the references you added were in many cases almost entirely nothing to do with the topic of the article? You're supposed to add references that unequivocally, self evidently support the material, but that doesn't seem to have happened, and when SnottyWong (quite rightly) pointed it out, you went through and removed large numbers of his edits at other AFDs.- Wolfkeeper 22:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
i'm glad JClemens admitted his fair share of blame... i agree that makes this AN/I less dramatic... people who make mistakes with no regrets need a warning to learn their lesson... but i think jclemens showed that he's learned that he can find a less dramatic way of handling this stuff.. i hope snottywong will consider scaling back the drama too. i'd hope he could try to generate more light than heat on issues that bother him like ARS... his userbox is creating a WP:BATTLEGROUND by borderline-attacking a specific group of editors... and it really would be better for wikipedia if everyone took a step back from the borderlines of incivil behavior... at least i hope he doesn't make a habit of borderlining and he's actually been civil and reasonable to me personally... as for ARS i think it might be fair to ask that someone who adds the rescue template should be obligated to add "this article has been tagged for rescue" to the deletion discussion itself just so it is easier to police for canvassing versus good faith improvement... again i think that's a fair improvement that would reduce drama.. Arskwad (talk) 07:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Arkswad and I think that, for the moment, the RFC is a little premature: Jclemens is discussing and seems to me open to input from uninvolved editors. I have, however, a simple (and blunt) question for him, hoping he will want to answer.
Are you still convinced that admins can follow a different set of rules when using rollback? This is a question about your future actions, I'm not trying to discuss your past ones. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 11:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
You tell me: read the top two links I posted in the rollback section above (assuming no one's changed them yet--I don't have time to check this morning), and let me know if they allow for or encourage administrators to use rollback in a non-vandalism context. Jclemens (talk) 14:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
They don't. If you think they do, then you're mistaken. How you ever thought that is beyond me. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Chris on this. WP:ROLLBACK applies both to admins and to rollbackers alike. In my opinion, if you were willing to acknowledge this for the future, this entire incident might be marked as resolved, since you acted in good faith. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 14:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I cannot pretend that the current policies and guidelines say what they do not say, nor that they do not say what they in fact DO say:
  • Conventionally, (a convention is not a rule, is it? It's a common practice) administrative rollback is only used to revert simple vandalism or large amounts of mistaken edits (such as when a bot malfunctions). Using rollback to revert conventional good-faith edits is frowned upon (frowned on is not prohibited, and there are plenty of non-good-faith edits that are not vandalism) because it leaves no useful message to the editor you are reverting and implies you thought their edit worth nothing more than the treatment of a vandal.
  • if you use the rollback feature other than for vandalism (for example, because undo is impractical due to the large page size), it is courteous to leave an explanation on the article's talk page or on the talk page of the user, whose edit(s) you have reverted. (emphasis mine, and note that I did this in this case).
It's clear from the feedback here that consensus does not match these written directions on Rollback's use. Now that I am aware of the disconnect between what is written and what is expected, I will continue to abide by the community's expectations, but strongly encourage that all relevant pages be updated to be consistent and clear. Jclemens (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Do you normally do things that are expressly "frowned upon", just because they are not expressly prohibited? SnottyWong talk 18:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Not usually. Honestly, the primary reason I used rollback was because you'd done both the votes and the tagging with {{ARSnote}} in a number of the discussions. Had it just been the first or had things been always done in the same edit, I wouldn't've used rollback. Jclemens (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Having a look over this, Im somewhat annoyed by the stupidity of it all. Jclemens showed extremely poor judgement by rollbacking a user's votes on a deletion forum. Not only was this a blatant misuse of rollback, but he is has indicated that (in his view) the rollback policy doesnt apply to admins. I suggest Jclemens chooses his next words more wisely or this will no doubt go to Arbcom and they can deal with it.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Need help with disruptive and antagonistic Wiki user (QueryOne)[edit]

User QueryOne‎ (talk · contribs) has, since March 2010, been acting and editing in a disruptive and uncooperative manner, which I believe to be at odds with Wikipedia's goals, the goals of his fellow editors, and the welfare of the larger Wikipedia community. This user has repeatedly gone on disruptive editing sprees, resulting in the following ...

Furthermore, a cursory glance at QueryOne's contributions over the last few months shows that his edits are limited to a fairly small number of articles and this (perhaps unfairly) leads me to conclude that he enjoys repeatedly annoying and antagonizing certain editors, rather than getting on with the business of improving Wikipedia. QueryOne has been warned about his disruptive conduct numerous times in a overwhelmingly helpful and polite manner by a number of different editors, including myself, Freshacconci, Collectonian (now known as AnmaFinotera), and Wwwhatsup. These warnings have been ignored and, in Freshacconci's case, have been met with vague hostility.

I propose that this has gone far enough and that the Wikipedians involved have done all that they can to resolve these problems themselves. I would therefore like to ask an administrator or administrators to step in and resolve this ongoing and intolerable situation. I hesitate to call for QueryOne to be blocked from editing, but I'm afraid to say that I believe that this may be the only option. I eagerly await your comments. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment I don't feel I can really add anything to what Kohoutek1138 has clearly put forward. What started as a dispute over genres of music has escalated into what appears to be disruptive edits for their own sake, including continuously calling editors vandals for edits that are clearly not vandalism and making incorrect edit summaries in a disruptive manner. freshacconci talktalk 16:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Also agree with Kohoutek1138's summary. User:QueryOne first appeared removing a statement from the lead of Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins, calling the view unnotable.[10]. When he was reverted, he redid the edit, calling it vandalism and clearly copy/pasting my own edit summary and replacing the names, as it is a Twinkle summary rather than the norm[11]. We had some back and forth on his talk page,[12] and some of his statements made me suspect that he is not the new editor his account purports.[13] As I wasn't sure who he might actually be, I just left it and figured it was done. He returned March 24th when he followed my contribs to Promised Land (TV series) where he corrected a typo in the article but used an edit summary of "reverted possible vandalism by Collectonian"[14] and Touched by an Angel where he removed a valid and properly sourced statement.[15] I left him a warning for the false statement[16] and removing sourced content, which resulted in more back and forth where I repeatedly pointed out the statement was sourced and he clearly didn't care.[17] His responses are consistently hostile and antagonistic. He left again and returned April 3, where he apparently decided to move on and soon noticed that he was doing the same wikihounding of Freshacconci, only being more unrelenting. I debated posting about it at the time, but honestly I just didn't want to have him bugging me again cause I had enough to deal with. I honestly think a check user should be done to see who this guy really is, I cause I doubt he really is a "new" editor, and even if a CU can't be done, administrative attention to his actions is appropriate. Thus far, I haven't seen him make a single useful contribution, and he seems to be randomly changing articles just to change them. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Unarchived as no response nor resolution occurred. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I have blocked the contributor for 24 hours for disruptive editing, as s/he seems to exhibit a long term overall pattern of disruption, a refusal to engage in consensus building and battleground behavior. I hope that this will give him (or her) an opportunity to reflect and that when the user returns s/he will work constructively with other editors. If not, additional sanctions may be necessary. I am particularly concerned by the wikihounding. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Hopefully that will get his attention and get him to realize he's acting inappropriately.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


Resolved: Mistaken block reversed --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 19:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Say, would someone with Twinkle or other mass rollback tool take a look at this school IP's contribs and roll them back at once? The IP was reported for vandalism and it's easy to see why. Thanks. PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you can be more specific, it seems the IP was mainly changing categories to more specific ones, which is constructive, not vandalism. I'm unsure of why they were blocked - when the block occured, there had been no edits for an hour, and the last several were all constructive.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 00:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm wondering too. Did you accidentally block the wrong IP? Or is this some long-term sock issue? Kindzmarauli (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It was on the AIV page as an abusive sock and I went ahead and blocked it per the request. If the edits were constructive, then plase feel free to revert my edits and unblock the IP. My bad if that's the case. PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, but the request was, and I quote, "I'm not sure if his current rash of edits are vandalism, but given the IPs history, and his changing of roughly 200 links in the past 2 days, it seems to at least deserve a look.". I admit I did not take a very close look at his edits, but I don't think they were vandalism; at least, before blocking, I would have approached the editor and sought a clarification on their talk page... Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 01:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Could we get this IP unblocked? It is a public shared IP, so per WP:BLOCK#Duration of blocks probably best to unblock or at least reduce to 24 hours until there is real vandalism occuring.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 03:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
All reverted. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Why, exactly? --auburnpilot talk 05:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
With a little help I've rolled back all Fastily's reverts. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm entirely confused by this situation. Why has an IP been blocked for three months for vandalism, and all of its edits reverted, based on edits like these? Where is the vandalism, disruption, or otherwise unhelpful contribution that resulted in a block? Why were these edits reverted? --auburnpilot talk 06:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
    I'm equally as confused as AuburnPilot. From the looks of it, the IP edits were nothing but constructive. I work extensively with categories, and I have to say those edits were right on point. I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to have reported IP in the first place, let alone block it and get all their edits reverted. Certainly, if it were block evasion, it would be a whole other story, but I see no evidence suggesting this. — ξxplicit 06:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I am very confused now. Were the edits vandalism or not? -FASTILYsock(TALK) 16:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support unblock. The more I look at this editor's edit history, the more I think it was all a misunderstanding... Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 07:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I've unblocked. PMDrive1061 indicated this was no problem for him. I left a note beneath the block notice indicating that there seems to have been a misunderstanding. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, MRG. It was a mistake on my part. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[edit]

Resolved: Seems to have stopped; report back if the edit warring resume for (I assume) a swift block. T. Canens (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC) (talk · contribs) is engaged in active edit-wars at the articles Predator (film), Brüno, The Station Agent, and V for Vendetta (film). User waged an identical edit-war several days ago using the IP (talk · contribs). The user insists that all instances of "$" must be changed to "$US", as there are countries beside the U.S. that use the dollar as their unit of currency. While it is true that the dollar is a unit used in numerous countries, I have explained to the editor a number of times in edit summaries and at the talk pages of both IPs that WP:$, which is part of our Manual of Style, states that in cases where the subject of the article is American (all of these are American films produced and distributed by American companies) we may simply use "$", especially if no other countries' currencies are referred to in the article (none are). Even if there were potential confusion, WP:$ instructs us to use "United States dollar" on the first instance and simply "$" on all subsequent usages, or "US$" if multiple nations' dollars are being referred to (which is not the case in any of these articles). Nevertheless the user continues to edit-war, accusing me of nationalism, telling me to "back off", and accusing me of being rude and of making threats (I have done neither). The user has broken [[WP:3RR] on all 4 articles as of this writing. Suggest either protecting the 4 affected articles or blocking the IP --IllaZilla (talk) 06:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

User talk:IllaZilla has started an edit war, and then accused others. This user has reverted helpful edits despite (i) the reason for the original edits being explained politely, (ii) not giving reasons for the reverts in the edit summary, and (iii) not giving appropriate reasons on talk pages.
The very, very small edits to which User talk:IllaZilla objects are to clarify to all Wikipedias reader whta currency is being quoted. It is confusing to use just '$' as over 30 countries use this as a currency. It is not correct to claim the articles are specific to any one country when the articles refer to films released worlwide, have earned money worldwide (inc. different $ currencies inc. from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore & The United States), and in some cases were written by & featured UK persons. Simply adding the prefix 'US' to $ is correct, and clarifies for all readers. Removing the prefix US does not help the articles, and actually damages them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
IllaZilla is quite correct, these are American films, and the US is completely unnecessary, and only confusing to you. Long standing consensus on American films is NOT to use the US as a prefix on $. Your edits are unnecessary. Further, your edit warring, inappropriate warning and claim that he's being nationalistic (incorrect)[18], demand that he "back off",[19] use of multiple IPs to edit war, and your edit summaries of "reverting unhelpful edit by same contributor" and many others I'm seeing in your history are inappropriate and frequently uncivil. The possible deliberate use multiple IPs is against [{WP:SOCK|policy]] and strikes me as vaguely familiar. Nor are your edits "helpful" in this regard. I'm also curious as to your seeming tagging of three editors' talk pages with claims they are sock puppets[20][21][22]-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Your reasoning is wholly flawed. The articles are not specific to any one country, and so which $ needs to be clarified. The article also reference earnings in a number of countries where $ are used, and so again which the $ needs to be clarified.
"The possible deliberate use multiple IPs is against [{WP:SOCK|policy]]" No, only if there is an attempt to hide identity which I have not done.
"I'm also curious as to your seeming tagging .." Why? These were appear to be attempts to hide identity.
My statement in edit an edit summary of "reverting unhelpful edit by same contributor" is valid. As this contributor was being unhelpful.
"demand that he back off" That was a heading to a section, and there is no evidence, as it was not made, of an order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary, began the edit war, as is clearly evident from the article history: He made an edit, I reverted it, and instead of taking it to the talk page, he simply restored his preferred version. That is the definition of edit warring. I have also given ample reasons and explanations for my reverts in both my edit summaries and on talk pages: see [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. The claim by that I have not given any reason for my reverts is blatantly spurious., on the other hand, has failed to address in any way how the instructions of WP:$ are inadequate to cover the situations in these articles. All of these films were made and distributed by American film companies, so all of their budgets and gross revenues are counted in US dollars. There is no need to differentiate this from any other dollar of any other country, as no other countries' currencies are referred to anywhere in any of these articles. There is certainly no reason that "$US" needs to be specified every time the symbol $ appears; once would do, if at all. Also this is the incorrect abbreviation, as it reads as "dollar United States". The correct abbreviation, per WP:$, would be "US$", which correctly reads as "United States dollar". By the way, whether the films "were written by & featured UK persons" has absolutely no bearing on this issue, as the United Kingdom uses the Pound sterling, not the dollar, which has a completely different symbol (₤). Unless is suggesting that our readers are unable to differentiate the symbol $ from ₤. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I've left them a message explaining what they're doing wrong and am happy to block if they continue. --John (talk) 07:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
User talk:IllaZilla please don't make further unfounded allegations. It was you who started and continued an ediit war: both on articles regarding '$' and on a talk page where you inappropriately made accustaions of vandalism.
And please do not try to distort the discussion by creating a false argument: up until your last meassge there has been no mention of ₤. The entire issue regards the many countries that use $ and the confusion that arises when this symbol alone is used in non-country specific articles. Suggesting such as "our readers are unable to differentiate the symbol $ from ₤" is a groundless invention that can only indicate weak reasoning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Please stop making baseless accusations. You started the edit war, as clearly evidenced above. Let me be very clear: when you make an edit, and someone reverts it, and you respond by making the same edit again without attempting to discuss the issue, you are initiating an edit war. I certainly did not make any inappropriate accusations of vandalism. I politely informed you what was wrong with your edits and your editing behavior. I also correctly warned you about the 3 revert rule and gave you a courtesy notice about this thread (which is required, by the way, whenever someone initiates an ANI discussion about you). I'm confident that no one here besides yourself would interpret these notices as "inappropriate". You are also lying when you say that "up until your lessage meassge there has been no mention of ₤". I have in fact specifically mentioned it to you twice before: Here on June 7, and here not 2 hours ago. Since you replied to both comments, there can be no arguing that you were not aware of them. It is hardly a "groundless invention" on my part to bring up the topic, as you yourself have twice justified your reverts by the involvement of "UK persons" with the films: [28] and [29]. I am pointing out that this is a moot point, as the US and UK use entirely different currencies which cannot be confused. That being the case, why do you feel, as you have twice stated, that the involvement of "UK persons" is a reason to require "US" before all of the dollar signs? --IllaZilla (talk) 08:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Support a block of the involved IPs, the MoS recommendations above are quite clear and quite right. Despite ample notice, continuing disruption. Shadowjams (talk) 08:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
And now accuses me of having an "insidious agenda" [30] [31]...indeed, the insidious agenda of enforcing our Manual of Style. Keeping Wikipedia articles consistent with Wikipedia's own style guidelines is hardly an act of nationalism. Yeesh. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
No baseless accusations from me ... I've been entirely consistent throughout: many countries use $ and in non-country specific articles should $ be mentioned then the type needs to be clarified.
You made an inappropriate warning about vandalism simply because you disagreed with a (helpful) edit.
You reverted helpful edits without stating in the edit summary any reason (warranted or not).
You have recently created an argument that I was interested in ₤. Again, my reason for adding US infront of $ is to clarify which of the many $ currencies was beign quoted. I did mention the subjects were British, but this was to highlight one reason (and there are others) why the articles are not US specific.
More distortion. There was no accusation of an "insidious agenda" .. which is obvious because of the use of the word not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 08:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Another set of false claims. Here is the evidence:
  • No baseless accusations from me
You baselessly accused me of starting an edit war. As I've plainly pointed out, you began the edit war when you restored your preferred revisions after being reverted the first time, and without discussing your edits on the articles' talk pages. We have a Bold-revert-discuss cycle that is used to establish consensus. When you unilaterally restore your preferred revisions every time another editor reverts your edits, you are edit-warring. In this situation you initiated the cycle of edit-warring by not taking the topic to the talk page after I had reverted your initial edit.
  • You made an inappropriate warning about vandalism simply because you disagreed with a (helpful) edit.
My warning was totally appropriate. Your repeated edits were unhelpful. As you can see from this thread, I am not the only editor who thinks so. That fact that you think they are helpful does not make it so.
  • You reverted helpful edits without stating in the edit summary any reason (warranted or not).
I gave ample reasons for my reverts repeatedly over 6 edit summaries: [32] [33] [34] [35] [36][37]. After stating the same thing a half-dozen times, it became obvious that you did not care what my reasons were, so I did not see any point in continuing to state them.
  • You have recently created an argument that I was interested in ₤.
No, you created this argument by twice attempting to justify your reverts to Brüno by stating that "a British comedian in a film that had a worldwide release is not an entirely US article" and that "the articles refer to films ... in some cases were written by & featured UK persons". Is is not appropriate for me to respond to these rationales you are giving? Especially since it relates directly to my points that the articles are about American films and that none of the articles contain any references to any currencies other than the US dollar?
  • There was no accusation of an "insidious agenda"
Hmm, let's check again: "It is possible that you may have another agenda" (other than writing articles) "if there is not something more malign and insidious" (than writing articles) did you expect these comments to be interpreted? Please focus on content rather than making accusations towards contributors.
--IllaZilla (talk) 09:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • There was No baseless accusations from me. This is a valid statement as I made helpful edits which you reverted without noting the reason in the edit summary. When the helpful edits were restored you repeatidly reverted them .. and can be clearly seen you started an edit war.
  • With no vandalism occuring it was inappropriate to post a warning.
  • SOME of you summary-less edits include: [38],[39],[40],[41],[42]
  • It was you who created an argument by referencing ₤. I never did, and why would I when it was irrelevant to the reasosn why $ alone is inappropriate and confusing. The mention of a British comedian is relevant to highlight why the article is not US specific, but this is just ONE reason. Other reasons include the fils were released in many countries that us $, and so earned money in these currencies. This is why the quoted $ needs to be clarified.
  • Quote: 'accuses me of having an 'insidious agenda'. I did not and hence why I refuted thus false claim. If you do (let's) check again you will see that was no accustaion .. all accusations have been by yourself including those (falsely) of vandalism, and of making 'accusations'.
  • 'Please focus on content rather than making accusations towards contributors.' It is ironic you should quote this as it as it is you who would do well to take heed civility and treating others with respect and politely.
  • If you are unable to make logical and rational contribution to a discussion please do not create arguments (such as introducing irrelevant subjects as yiu did with ₤) or misquote (such as you did with the claim I accused you of having an 'insidious agenda'. To do such can be interpretted as evidence either of the paucity of you claim or a weakness in your reasoning.
  • And having just noticed a recent edit summary includes '.. lying liars ..' it would appear that whilst you are happy to preach focus on content rather than making accusations towards contributors you are not prepared to follow this guideline. AND I have not lied, it is just another example of your distortions although in this case 'invention' is more accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Seconding support of block of involved IPs and semi-protection of involved articles, as IPs replies show he has no intention of listening to the now no less than four editors telling him he is wrong, his continued insults towards anyone disagreeing with him, and his continued pestering of IllaZilla on his talk page despite this current ANI. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Thirding support of block, and offering NZ$0 (or £0 if you'd prefer) to the IP to stop this. TFOWR 16:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Need a Range Block[edit]

The date change vandal who has been plaguing India related articles is back. The range block which was in place for two months expired yesterday and his back with a vengeance. I request an extension of the block on the IP range - - (only 4096 possible IPs affected). --Sodabottle (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for three months, since the one-month block on the same range expired, and this range covers the most recent vandal whose date-modifications you reported above. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Ed!.--Sodabottle (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Addition of unsourced material by Bottracker[edit]

Bottracker (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Editor has been cautioned to refrain from doing so, however to no avail. After I reverted his edits, he placed level 3 & level 4 warning templates on my user talk page. When you check this edit, you will notice that there is a reference on the controversial material about "Nigerian Cinema's success can be attributed to the Ghanaian film industry". However, this reference was not provided by the editor, was already in the article, and has absolutely nothing to do with the added material. It appears as if the editor simply placed his addition within an already existing reference to create the impression as if the added material is properly referenced. Since I do not want to be involved in or be accused of edit warring, I have brought the issue to this board. This is not a content dispute. This is an issue of an editor repeatedly placing unsourced material into an article. Please look thoroughly into this matter. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked Bottracker indefinitely upon review of his edits to Cinema of Nigeria and use of vandalism warnings to attempt to suppress Amsain's raising valid concerns, per the details noted above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hoax gone international[edit]

A few months ago a sockmaster created articles or otherwise promoted a hoax around a supposed model named Brenda Williams, and it looks like the sockmaster is promoting the same hoax on the Spanish Wikipedia. Can an admin deal with this?  Mbinebri  talk ← 22:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't in the English Wikipedia's jurisdiction. There are plenty of English speaking administrators of the Spanish Wikipedia. Just explain the situation to one of them.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I tagged it for speedy deletion. Evil saltine (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you userfy Sonic Mega Giveaway to my userspace?[edit]

Can you userfy Sonic Mega Giveaway to my userspace? thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EyeLoveKitties (talkcontribs) 23:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be a hoax, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sonic_Mega_Giveaway. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Why do I think User:BandTigerTom is deeply linked with User:EyeLoveKitties? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by[edit] (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has repeatedly engaged in the behavior described in WP:Disruptive Editing, including "Is tendentious", "Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability", and "Does not engage in consensus building". This user has been repeatedly warned (on his Talk page and on the article Talk page) that his edits violate WP:Truth, WP:NPOV, and contradict the many WP:Reliable Sources which the article has. The user has refused to respond to these requests that he stop his edits which violate Wikipedia policy. Here are diffs of his edits: [43], [44], [45], and [46].-- (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Try WP:AIV instead of here. Pilif12p's Sock :  Yo  00:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

somebody please speedy admin this guy.[edit]

Resolved: Going for Wikipedia:Times that 200 or more Wikipedians supported something. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

like now. Rohedin TALK 13:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this thread? There are still three days left, and admins cannot make other admins... Aiken 13:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Humour?   pablohablo. 16:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I think they meant it, but in GF. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
WP:RIGHTNOW closures are rare. –xenotalk 17:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
No! Do it before they pass my 153 RecfA supports... Quickly!!! LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Let's let it get to 153 even and then pass it. :) - NeutralHomerTalk • 22:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
It has already passed 153. Right now it's at 155. MC10 (TCGBL) 02:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Uh oh...LessHeard vanU is going to be "mad" :) - NeutralHomerTalk • 02:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Don Martin (public affairs)[edit]

This is a strange one. This AfD focuses on a land developer in Austin who also published a book of old postcards from the area. I question the notability of this individual, but the most aggregious aspect of the article is the other editors involved, all of whom seem to have some personal motivation to ensure the article only focuses on the positive aspects of the individual's life, while circumventing any attempt at adding data (verifiable) that would balance the article. I seem to be the only editor on this AfD who thinks the article should be deleted, except for the original nom, and the others are viciously adamant that it be kept, which smacks of WP:COI and WP:NPOV. I have had edits I've made to the article reverted when the edit was intended to make the article more concise and encyclopedic, while the edit reversions always favor showing only the positive aspects of this person. It is believed that some people close to the individual are actually editing the article while he himself has weighed in on the discussion page, which leads me to believe he might have been writing it himself at some point, possibly while signed in as someone else. Additionally, the name of the article is actually the name of his business, which seems a method of using Wiki for free advertising. Some outside help and opinions would be appreciated. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Investigating. SWATJester Son of the Defender 05:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I agree with you on the AfD, but the consensus is overwhelmingly to keep. Part of the problem with this article is that the things that seem like a resume here are actually also sourced assertions of notability. That being said, it's difficult to identify which one of the users involved would be the COI users -- since the article looks fairly decent at the moment, I'd suggest that the additional eyeballs from the AfD ought to keep whitewashing out, and if there's further problems try the COI Noticeboard or other DR measures. But I'm not seeing any obvious admin action needed here. SWATJester Son of the Defender 05:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment per the subject of the article requesting input of uninvolved editors I have made an RFC Talk:Don_Martin_(public_affairs)#Review_of_Nightmare.27s_Removals_of_Citations ZacharyLassiter (talk) 07:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - FYI, Nineteen Nightmares has repeated removed content, references, etc, ignoring the clear consensus of editors, has made baseless accusations which caused another admin to give him a warning on his conduct, has repeated dumped non-relevant material into the AfD discussion. GregJackP (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment FYI, GregJackP is a liar. I have done nothing but try to impr