Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive649

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Possible case of WP:OWN at G.A. Siwabessy[edit]

Editor User:Hahndyto has repeatedly removed things from this article such as:

  • Defaultsort and categories
  • Persondata
  • An interwiki link
  • Tags such as multiple issues, orphan, poor English, and rough translation, without the issues being addressed (diffs: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5])
  • Syntax fixes (diff: [6])
  • Conversion of external links to Wikipedia articles to internal link format

He/she has also re-added some things that were taken out such as:

  • Notes about the author of the article (diffs: [7], [8], [9])

Additional diffs showing examples: [10], [11], [12]

There are more diffs, but I think these show what I'm talking about.

I've tried to explain that other editors are allowed to edit this article, and that some of the things being removed are standard to Wikipedia articles and should be left in, but I don't seem to be getting through. Can someone help? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

tagged under G12, it said at then end The article had been published in magazines Tabaos, Media Information & Communications, for limited community, Maluku Foundation Scholarship Fund (YDBM), Volume 7, No. 3, October 2010, Jakarta The article reads like a bad translation of such an article as would be published Foundation's website or News letterThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
The images he uploaded to Commons are all blatant copyrigh tviolations and I've tagged them as such there. - Burpelson AFB
The G12 was declined becuase the source the Author claims its copied from is not an online source. Thus the Admin was unable to verify wehther or not it was a copy vio when the idividual says it right there in the above diff. Ug The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03
54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

user Special:Contributions/BullRangifer[edit]

could someone please look at recent reverts and vandal warning issued to me by this user, and give him a polite WP:AGF warning. thanks. i can't edit his talk page and let him know about this thread.188.2.48.67 (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you informed BR about this thread pursuant to the instructions you got when you started this thread? Hipocrite (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Try reading the post before complaining about it, Hipocrite. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
My bad. I've informed BR of this thread, in addition to cautioning him about poor templating. Hipocrite (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for informing me of this. My talk page is semiprotected because of frequent harassment. I see now that we're dealing with a serial IP (using several IPs) who has been repeatedly - in spite of other editors' reversions and objections - deleting referenced material and otherwise being unconstructive. My intentions are good, but I'm not perfect. I'm trying to protect the project and may have used the wrong template, but I chose the mildest one, since mass deletion of references is usually referred to as vandalism, even if it's of a mild type. How should we deal with this IP user? They have been requested to start an account but haven't done it yet. All their edits need to be collected in ONE edit history. Right now they are avoiding the scrutiny of other editors by scattering their edits between several accounts. Permanent semi protection of the Quackwatch, Stephen Barrett and NCAHF articles would be one way to avoid these situations. That way IPs would have to use the talk pages more and get consensus before making such radical and controversial edits on these very touchy articles. This happens quite often, and semi protection for a week isn't good enough. It needs to be permanent. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
'protecting the project' from me? i feel like a criminal now :P if you were not serious, you would be funny. that article lacks reliable secondary sources that talk about it in depth, and therefore its notability is dubious. it has bunch of dead links so that it would appear as notable, and once they are cleaned, it becomes very obvious that its notability is practically non-existent. 188.2.48.18 (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Your attitude isn't really the way to approach this. And IP-hopping doesn't make you look good, either. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
it takes two to tango. [13] 188.2.48.18 (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Except this isn't tango. Your being snobbish and condescending. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
BR is 'protecting the project' from me, and now I am being condescending. interesting. 188.2.48.18 (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

───────────────────────── For those who wish to know, 188.2.48.0/24 would be the most effective method of dealing with this issue.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a rangeblock? Right now I'd be happy if the Serbian IP editor would get an account so their editing history would be collected in one place. IP hopping after having been advised amounts to a violation of our policy against avoiding the scrutiny of other editors. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
It's only avoiding scrutiny if the user is doing this on purpose. Have you any evidence that he's resetting his IP to keep being an annoyance?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
"Avoiding scrutiny" has to do with its effect here, not necessarily with motives. It's avoiding scrutiny regardless of motive. I'm not implying it's deliberate as there are other reasons for why IPs often change. The end effect here is still the same - other editors get confused and have trouble knowing who is speaking. If they had a stable IP it wouldn't be a problem. Since it's the same person, they should get an account when they have been notified that their actions are disruptive and confusing. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Here are the Serbian IPs (so far)

Brangifer (talk) 05:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:OWN and WP:COI at House rabbit[edit]

User:Ed Brey is violating WP:OWN and WP:COI at House rabbit, e.g. [14] and [15]. Does not listen to article talk page consensus re proper pronoun usage and makes the page his personal playground in other ways (e.g., insertion of self-promoting links). Also see discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#He/she or it when talking about pets? --Morn (talk) 11:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

  • I know that you've been referred here, but the person who referred you here was wrong. You have a plain, garden variety, content dispute. At best, the thing that involves administrators is the edit war between Wjemather (talk · contribs) and Ed Brey (talk · contribs). Administrators are not content arbitrators. Decisions as to content are made by the editorship at large. Every editor is capable of involvement. What you really need are more editors to come to the talk page, to supplement the mainly two editors that are there. You need third opinions. You've got some at the MOS talk page. Maybe some administrators, with their hats on as ordinary editors, will provide additional opinions. But there are, comparatively, few administrators and a lot of editors. AN/I is not a good third-opinion-seeking mechanism. Uncle G (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm counting six editors on the talk page who say it should be "it". That count does not include me, nor those editors at the MOS talk discussion (where "it" was also the consensus), nor reverts from "he/she" to "it" by IPs like this edit: [16]. This is not really a content dispute; instead it's about a single user violating the rules of WP conduct (WP:OWN and WP:COI). And using "it" or "he" is a question of proper encyclopedic writing style, not content. --Morn (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Ownership, very probably. Especially since this has been one editor trying to fight off unrelenting modification since 2007. Conflict of interest, I doubt. How can one possibly have a conflict of interest as to what is the correct pronoun for the prose in an article about rabbits? Content dispute, very much so. This is exactly a dispute as to article content. One person wants one word; several others want another. Uncle G (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
        • The COI refers to that link to his web site: [17] --Morn (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Excuse me Uncle G, but I looked at the article for the first time after seeing the notice at MOS a couple of days ago. There is clearly a problem with the article, that is not being helped by User:Ed Brey's insistence that his version stands. I have simply reverted to what appears to me to be a clear consensus with Ed being being in a minority of one with his opinion. I would tend to agree with you that this is the wrong venue at this time, and I am trying/have tried to engage Ed in discussion to explain to him why there are problems with his, but have not managed to get anywhere yet. wjematherbigissue 19:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, and the problem is that it's just the two of you. You need to get some third opinions in. AN/I isn't the place to seek third opinions from the editorship at large, for the reasons already stated. List the article at RFC. Ask the MOS editors for their help, not just their opinions. Uncle G (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
        • There's little point in soliciting more opinions IMHO. Everyone except Ed already seems to agree that "it" is correct, and even if we had the opinions of ten times as many people who think the same, that probably wouldn't stop Ed from reverting. --Morn (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Would have been nice if Uncle G had actually looked into the matter before commenting, but perhaps that's asking too much. wjematherbigissue 00:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
            • I looked into the matter, and the fact, that you don't like but that is true nonetheless, is that you have a content dispute over pronouns for which we have normal dispute resolution processes. You're looking for a way to pass the effort onto administrators. That doesn't happen. Get those third opinions. There are big boldface notices at the top of this page that this noticeboard is not a part of our dispute resolution processes. Uncle G (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
              • Hard to see how that is the case given what you have said, but I'll let you beleive what you want. wjematherbigissue 09:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Robert Louis Stevenson[edit]

Google's logo today celebrates Robert Louis Stevenson's birthday. If you click on it, the first Google hit is to Wikipedia's page. I just reverted vandalism on the page, but it's good to keep some eyes looking at the article. Corvus cornixtalk 05:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Semi protected for 24 hrs - lots of vandalism today.  7  07:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Op finish them[edit]

This is an account created on October 29, Contributions. The Editors first edit was to create a Category Category:Northern Ireland election stubs and second was creation of Template:NI-election-stub. This shows high suspicious familiarity with our systems. It strikes me as clear block evasion but as I dont edit in the topic area I have no idea who would fit the MOThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 05:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

How does this make them suspicious? Perhaps they retired an old account. Perhaps they've just read Wikipedia for years. There's nothing vandalistic about the edits. Corvus cornixtalk 06:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
And the eidtor is contributing to an edit war at Glenn Beck (a BLP) without using the talk page.[18][19] Cptnono (talk) 08:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Bad faith much? The Resident Anthropologist, how you do turn on a dime. And Cptnono, see to it that you follow your own advice to "ake sure you are being NPOV and reading the sources." Lol. (By the way, what edit war?) Op finish them (talk) 10:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

A drv question[edit]

update: I have been emailed a copy of the full source to this userspace page, by a previously uninvolved administrator. (Thanks!) It confirms my skepticism that the pages merited deletion. I would still really appreciate advice about where to have an official determination on whether the page was really a copyright violation. Geo Swan (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

A userspace page I created was deleted as a COPYVIO earlier this week. The administrator in question has informed they will not email me the source. So I initiated a DRV. In that DRV I did not request restoration. I merely requested the source be emailed to me. The administrator who closed the DRV explicitly stated that they did not want to take a position, one way, or another, whether the material was a copyright violation.

This second administrator said he would email me the portion of the user page that was not an "identical copy" of the source page. What he or she emailed me was about five to ten percent of the userspace page -- essentially worthless.

I asked the second administrator, several days ago, where I should get the issue of whether or not the page was a copyright violation resolved. I asked them to reconsider their decision to not email me the full source of the page. They haven′t been online.

I won't go into all the details as to why I disagree that the page was a copyright violation, as per Feith v. Rural. The details are here -- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 8#User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Brookings lists of released captives, User talk:Lifebaka#Your assistance please. The only thing I will add is that the initial deleting administrator's opinion seems to be that the last quarter of the very long page contained a few phrases -- sentence fragments that constitute a fraction of one percent of the page -- are sufficiently original that they are copyrightable. It is my opinion these these few sentence fragments do not pass de minimus, and are not copyrightable. An uninvolved third party has pointed out that, even if the few sentence fragments were copyrightable, since they constituted such a tiny fraction of the page, they would be includeable under the fair use doctrine.

So, I'd like to know

  1. whether DRV is the appropriate venue to resolve whether or not the page violated copyright.
  2. whether I can get the entire original source of the page emailed to me.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

  • I think there is no reason the source should not be mailed. I myself, however, do not want to take admin action regarding Geo. The copyvio is trivial and probably fair use. Myself, I think the initial speedy deletion was unjustified, and the speedy close to the DRV after only 3 hours improper, because additional time should have been allowed. DRV is meant to be a discussion. (I for example follow DRV regularly, and check it daily, but I missed being able to comment. I check it daily, not hourly around the clock.) The only people who had time to discuss were the admin who did the original deletion, one consistent opponent of this group of articles, and 1 person who expressed no opinion over the issue of copyvio. In fact, neither did the closing administrator for the DRV express an opinion about copyvio. If he was unwilling to make a determination of copyvio, he had no basis for not mailing the article. DGG ( talk ) 19:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
With respect to the last point, the admin did have a basis for not mailing the article — Wikipedia administrators are volunteers and are not compelled to take any action. If one admin is uncomfortable, unwilling, or simply unavailable, find another one who is prepared to evaluate the situation and render assistance as appropriate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • You are absolutely correct that wikipedia administrators are volunteers, just like the rest of us. However, since the closing admin didn't feel comfortable going on record as to whether the page was or wasn't a copyright violation I am sure you can understand why I am mystified that they closed the discussion at all? You haven't said -- do you think DRV was the wrong venue to seek resolution over the issue of whether the page was a copyright violation? If you think it was the wrong venue, would you be so kind as to recommend the correct venue? Geo Swan (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
could you elucidate? we are --all of us-- discussing process, not anarchy. I think most of us on all sides are trying to avoid making it a battleground. But we are all of us trying to deal with copyvio questions properly, which is necessarily a little bureaucratic. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Is there any connection to this incident and the fact that Fram and Iqinn have recently nominated 34+ of Geo Swan's user subpages for deletion? This smells of Wikibullying to me. These multiple actions (coming from an admin, no less) against an editor in good standing are troublesome to me, although admittedly I may not be aware enough of the history of the situation to comment. SnottyWong chatter 00:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • No bullying involved. User Geo Swan has a truckload of userspace subpages, many of them useful or potentially useful, many others completely useless or even copyright and/or BLP violations. I am only deleting things that fall under speedy criteria G10 and G12, and nominating other pages I think are not compliant with our user space policies (like copies of articles deleted after an AfD, then userfied, and then left unedited for months or often years). In most cases, the consensus is that these pages are indeed deleteworthy. In some cases, I was wrong. That's the nature of deletion discussions. I have also indicated that I will not post the source text of pages I consider G10 violations or G12 violations to any user. And I don't understand why Geo Swan needed not only the minor parts he contibuted to the deleted page, but also the 50plus Kb he copied straight from a study... But if anyone thinks that e.g. User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/rescue/Muhammad Rahim should not have been deleted, they are free to explain why... Fram (talk) 11:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • No admin has to offer mailing article copies; anyone of us is free to say, please ask someone else, or even ignore a request. But if we choose to do it or refuse in a particular case, we must do so in conformity with policy , & making correct factual judgments. We admins are responsible for what we do, and for how we do it. An admin who does not want to take responsibility in a particular case should let someone else handle it. I do this all the time and so does every admin--none of us deals with everything we see, just what we are prepared to deal with. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Geo Swan states, at the start of this report, that "The only thing I will add is that the initial deleting administrator's opinion seems to be that the last quarter of the very long page contained a few phrases -- sentence fragments that constitute a fraction of one percent of the page -- are sufficiently original that they are copyrightable." I have explained, repeatedly, that that is not my opinion, and I would like for Geo Swan to stop explaining "my position" if he doesn't understand it at all. My position is that he copied 50Kb of a scientific study word for word, with the exact same layout, section headings, order, comments, ... See e.g. my comment from November 8 on the DRV[20] and my comment from NOvember 9 in the same DRV[21], where I had to clear up Geo Swan's misconception that we allow more leeway in userspace for copyright or BLP violations. Anyway, my note in that last post, "a table which has a column "basis for conclusion", and sections like "LIMITED DOCUMENTATION – TENTATIVE CONCLUSION" can not be considered a list of hard, uncopyrightable facts, but a study, an interpretation of facts, an opinion of the authors based on reading sources." flatly contradicts Geo Swan's summary of my position, and he should be aware of this by now. Fram (talk) 11:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Hojay23[edit]

This user has made the same repeated vandalism/hoax edits like this: [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] I didn't use the formality of the wikiwarning, I don't even know where that format page is. Instead, I gave him a stern warning in english, which you can find on his talk page. He has continued to make the same edit, fraudulently calling somebody (presumably himself) the winner of an event, in record time, that he did not win. There is public record of those results on this official website. Trackinfo (talk) 04:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Although he has stopped editing at the moment, I indefed the account as a vandalism only account. Of course he can appeal and I would be happy to speak to him but every edit has been vandalism, there was no response to a warning on his talk page and there was no evidence of productive desire or work. No sense to leave it open to more damage. JodyB talk 13:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu admin account[edit]

Rod has been requested to stay away from Malleus and to remember to be civil. Off2riorob (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Incident[edit]

Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) stated on my talk page that another person in his house may have accessed his admin account.

His contribs in the same editing period indicate concern that either 1) his admin account is not secure, 2) he edits under the influence (including use of tools), or 3) he made the post himself. The edit summary, to an IP on 4 November at 01:38, of the post in question (and there are others similar) is:

Background
  1. On 20 October Rodhullandemu closed an ANI discussion with "Wankers".
    Rod's response
  2. On 31 October, in a different incident, Nuclear Warfare warned Rodhullandemu that if his behavior continued, he would be seeking a lengthy block. (NW indicated that was the second warning: I am unaware of the first.)
    Found. On 29 October, Rod told MF to STFU. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  3. Today, Rodhullandemu began poking Malleus Fatuorum again, casting aspersions upon MF and his article editing (see WP:WBFAN for evidence of MF's editing), and after being asked to back off,
    1. continued the discussion on my talk, where he claimed his admin account was used by another person.
    2. He continued on Malleus's and my talk even after I told him he might want to stop digging and take the night off.
Rodhullandemu's contribs during the editing time frame on 4 November show
  1. he used the tools to block an IP at 00:22 (I don't know how to supply that diff), (I did it TbhotchTalk C. 06:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC))
  2. the "fuck's sake shut up" "wanker" post to an IP was at 01:38, and
  3. he posted to Jimbo's talk page at 01:59.
A review of his other contribs in that time frame reveals other problems, and a continuous editing session until 02:11 UTC.
Disengage from Malleus
Independently of whether Rodhullandemu's admin account is secure or he edits under the influence and what is to be done about that, I request that the community consider that he should be asked to refrain from any engagement with Malleus Fatuorum, either at ANI or on user talk.

I will do notifications next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu's reply
at 18:16, November 13, 2010 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • His explanation for the drunken edit makes no sense. He challenges you to attribute it to him? Does he mean beyond the fact that it's his account that made the edit? Also, someone connecting to your WiFi wouldn't give them access to your account. They have to be on the same browser and PC. Something is rotten here, and it isn't my socks. --Andy Walsh (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "someone connecting to your wifi" > try Firesheep. Works. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
      • What I'm more concerned with is the admin logs. Surprisingly, he hasn't made any incorrect actions during the compromisation. Minimac (talk) 06:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Firesheep is irrelevant: see Wikipedia:ADMIN#Take care and Wikipedia:Security. Compromise of the tools is serious business (but then, so is his continual poking at Malleus). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Agree, highly suspicious here. Rodhullandemu's general conduct would probably be better suited to WP:RFC/U (of which one is long overdue, imo, but let's not digress); in this case the apparent compromisation of an admin account should lead to (a) an emergency desysopping if he hasn't regained access; or (b) a strongly-worded admonishment about ensuring the safety of his admin account if he has. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 07:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Per Andy above, wifi doesn't give people access to his account; further, the edit itself was obviously that of someone at least familiar with Wikipedia, if not of the temperament and personality Rod has displayed on-wiki in the past. I am fairly certain that these circumstances do not allow for the account to have been compromised. The diffs above all seem characteristic of one experienced person who's simply taken DGAF too far. sonia 07:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Reserving judgment until Rod responds, but the assertion that an edit might have been inserted into his unsecured wi-fi is not particularly credible, speaking in my personal experience as a computer security practitioner. Jclemens (talk) 07:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Speaking as a fellow computer security practitioner, since the inception of Firesheep a few weeks ago the ability to access another editors account on an unsecured wi-fi has become a rather trivial matter possible. For admins reading it seems relevant to quote the advice of Dcoetzee, "You should always use the secure server when editing from a network that is not under your control like a public wifi network, especially if you're an admin or other privileged account". Regards, SunCreator (talk) 11:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • It's 8am where he is - give him a chance to respond here. Personally, while he can be abrasive, I know he has a lot of personal stuff going on, too, so please - go easy on the guy - Alison 08:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
10.20 now, but I expect he may be sleeping in late this morning! Johnbod (talk) 10:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Alison. That has been my sense, even without knowing the situation, which is another reason I asked him to stop engaging Malleus and think it might be best for all if he do so. He doesn't seem able to relate to Malleus without a good amount of unproductive needling (claiming Malleus isn't here to build the encyclopedia stretches credibility). UncleG's post below is so full of silliness that I won't take the time to reply. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • One only has to look up ⇑ at the "dishonest arse" and suchlike to see the real origin of today's outbreak of silliness. Malleus Fatuorum was silly. Rodhullandemu was silly. The idea that one can hijack a Wikipedia account via WiFi hijacking is … well … not quite silly but not very well founded technically; but it was a silly way to make the real point that Rodhullandemu was obviously trying to make, namely that the two incidents had no connection with each other. The assumption that Rodhullandemu's administrator account is evidently compromised is silly, given the content in that edit. I'm amazed that anyone, even the people who are not computer security practitioners, gives it serious credence. (Am I the only person to have read beyond the edit summary?) It's quite clearly a rather angry way of saying "Gah! Edit conflict NUMBER THREE!", two of which 1 2 were apparently with SineBot notice, so this wasn't aimed just at the editor without an account. And SandyGeorgia is being silly in escalating this; if the object is to stop people looking at Malleus Fatuorum, and to not draw attention to the double standard of ignoring a friend calling others "dishonest arse" and chastising an opponent for "wanker" as an expression of exasperation at multiple edit conflicts and at a discussion of a perennial topic that once again achieves no rise in standards of personal behaviour; and to not be asked why xe thinks "In a word [STFU]" (in the self-same discussion as Rodhullandemu's edit above) is setting a good example on xyr own part.

    A lot less of the silliness all around, please. Let's have the FA writers and the people involved with them being a little less of little clique all telling one another and other people to "STFU" and "fuck off" for years on end. Remember Linas. The "best of Wikipedia" should be accompanied by the best of Wikipedia behaviour. Toxicity has bred toxicity for years, here. It's time for you all to stop. Uncle G (talk) 08:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Having checked the diffs here, I think Uncle G has it exactly right. Jonathunder (talk) 11:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't believe a word that comes from Rod's mouth, particularly his explanation that his account was somehow compromised. Any other editor would, regardless of blame, apologise for such a mistake, but Rod's conduct is unbecoming of an administrator. Face it, if he were at WP:RFA now he wouldn't stand a chance. His posts are often abusive, overbearing, egotistical and plain unhelpful. I don't think he should be an administrator here. Parrot of Doom 09:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The menacing tone of [28] edits like this, from an admin who was posting on someone's talk page for no actual reason, is completely unacceptable. Does anyone believe that anything useful or constructive will ever result from Rod posting on Malleus' talk page again, given the considerable history here? There are 24 posts by him there in the last 4 months. As a minimum he should be prevented from posting there in future. Johnbod (talk) 09:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • If Rodhullandemu has stated that his admin account has been compromised, then it shoud be treated as such. Therefore, a temporary emergency desysopping would seem to be in order until such time as it can be demonstrated that he has control of the account again. Mjroots (talk) 11:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • He has stated no such thing. He claimed (unconvincingly) that someone else had used in the past hijacked his wifi connection. He also said he is no longer editing over wifi, or something to the same effect. With an improper application of the "I think you are lying, but I will assume you are not and give you a lesson based on your false claims" technique you can easily shoot yourself in your own foot. Hans Adler 11:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Just noting, for the record, the trend: an editor who raises serious questions about an admin's use of tools is either called "petty" or "silly". So ... that's why admin misuse and abuse rarely gets taken to RFC/U or ANI, which should answer some of the questions raised by Jimbo on his talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    I don't think there has been any misuse of the tools has there? Off2riorob (talk) 12:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    I was referring to a different case with "petty" (where there was misuse of admin tools)-- "silly" is this case. I don't know if there has been misuse in this case: I haven't examined his log. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    Ah, I see, Uncle G, six sillies and two sillinesses in one comment, not bad going. Seems like this is more about inter-relating, Rod gets a bit involved sometimes but means well as the vast majority of users do, old enemies are the worst, perhaps we should have a make friends with your worst wiki enemy day and all try to accept each others frailties and get on a bit better. Only three or four admin actions in his log for this period, a couple of blocks and a couple of protections, usual vandal fighting stuff. Off2riorob (talk) 12:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    Admin breaks are a good idea, when the community thinks an admin is getting a bit lost or carried away, get a consensus to ask them to take a one month break from the tools. All Admins should take tool breaks and edit as an ordinary editor or they lose touch with what it is like to be an ordinary editor. I support two obligatory one month tool breaks per year per admin. Off2riorob (talk) 12:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    I think SandyGeorge has a good idea and I concur. Let the two step away from each other. Hopefully that will prevent a problem from getting bigger. JodyB talk 13:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    I don't recall starting this, just as I don't recall going to Rod's talk page and making semi-coherent threats. It's really quite unedifying to see how frequently administrators make excuses for each others' poor behaviour. Malleus Fatuorum 16:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I commend the idea of voluntary desysopping for when wiki/rl stresses are affecting your judgement. Giving up my tools for a couple of months at the start of the year was the best decision I ever took. Spartaz Humbug! 14:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Might an RFC be worth considering? It just might help put him on the right track; if not, it may still be needed as preliminary DR before this ends up at AC (which I hope it will not need to). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with SandyGeorgia that Uncle G's attempt to sweep things under the carpet was not helpful. This time around Rodhullandemu has given barely credible excuses for poor behaviour and has in addition gone awol, having been up most of the night, 20 minutes before this report was made. I realise that his real life conditions are severe. Nevertheless he should take a little more responsibility for his own actions, particularly if he envisages keeping his mop. Mathsci (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC) A secondary concern at the moment is that his irregular sleeping patterns might prevent him from witnessing a Great British public figure who must surely be one of his role models.[29]
    • His sleep patterns look pretty regular to me? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I see no point in speculating about his being awol or not; give him a little time to respond. If Uncle G's synopsis is correct, it is still an issue of great concern; he is not behaving as we expect admins to behave. "Silly" is not "STFU" etc. and calling it so does not diminish the concerns raised by this behavior. If I behave poorly, I cannot then pass it off as highjinks; I must accept responsibility for my actions. If he has been careless enough for another to gain access, he needs to rectify that; if this is he himself acting, he needs to rectify that. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 16:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Asking for less silliness all around is not sweeping things under the carpet. It's asking for what I suspect the majority of people want at this point. And that includes the silliness in that comment that you just made. Less of that silliness as well, please. In a complaint about Rodhullandemu "poking", here are you doing it — just as SandyGeorgia complaining about people telling others to "STFU" was doing that xyrself at the same time, in the same thread, on the same page, the same day. As I said: Silliness all around. We, the rest of us, want less of it from all of you — SandyGeorgia, Malleus Fatuorum, Rodhullandemu, you, and the rest. You've been at each other and anyone passing by like this, toxicity breeding toxicity and generating one of the most vile atmospheres in the project (compared with which even newbies at Articles for deletion coming to User talk:Ron Ritzman are paragons of sweetness and light) for years.

      It's time for all of you to stop it. This environment where for years you've all been telling one another to "fuck off", "STFU", and throw words like "shit", "fuck", and "arse" at all sorts of other editors, and feel an entitlement to do so, should stop if you want to actually resolve things here, because it's your basic problem that's causing almost all of the rest, just as this particular bout of all-round silliness started with the "dishonest arse" namecalling. The editors who are so proud of making the best of Wikipedia articles should start exhibiting the best of Wikipedia behaviour toward other people.

      I pointed it out in the case of Linas and I point it out here. One of the things that the whole we-can-abuse-everyone-else-with-bad-language-and-personal-insults-we're-content-writers subset overlooks in this whole silliness is that if any of you were content writers over at Citizendium, far from having a safe expert-friendly environment where you could just write articles in peace, you'd all have been thrown out on your ears, no ifs no buts no maybes, long since, at the first swear word, which was several years ago in several of your cases. Yours is the very expert-unfriendly behaviour that the experts-who-want-a-quiet-life do not want around. You want the content-writer-friendliness? You improve your behaviours out here in public to match the standards required for it. Just as those (quite a few) of us who are also content writers (and indeed experts), and yet who do not suffer the they-don't-respect-me-because-I'm-a-content-writer problems, have done all along.

      Uncle G (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

      • Your efforts to shift attention away from your admin colleague are very transparent and do you no credit. Malleus Fatuorum 17:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
        • You know, considering the admins are effectively on your side here, you could be a bit less of a dick than you usually are. Next you'll yell at that nice fireman for getting water all over you when you were on fire. HalfShadow 18:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Could someone please clarify where I ever told anyone to STFU? It has been said to me, but I can't recall returning the favor. In fact, there are quite a few things wrong in your summary, but I'll leave it at that for now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Haven't read this whole thing, but I will just say there is no excuse for calling other editors wankers, and Rod's refusal to take responsibility for his actions and simply apologise and take care to not repeat these attacks is contrary to what we expect from our administrators. I'll also note I warned Rod about this recently, see here (Rod blanked this thread per WP:BLANKING). I didn't think any action further than a clear warning was necessary at that time (such action would have seemed like punishment to me, since he wasn't actively attacking others at that point). - Kingpin13 (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I just found this: At a recent ANI thread where we were discussing suicide reporting, Rod posted this: Likewise, I shall shortly be gone from here, for one reason or another. I'd prefer it if the fuss was minimised. Rodhullandemu 00:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC). Completely immature. Access Deniedtalk to me 17:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "Wikipedia is not therapy." If he's seriously contemplating suicide, he should go see someone about it and not try to lay any guilt or co-dependency or whatever on wikipedia editors. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
      That wasn't a suicide threat, more a honest reflection of Rod's reality. Off2riorob (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
      Meaning what? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, my account is not compromised as far as I know. I have little or no recollection of recent events. I have a number to call in times of crisis and am waiting for them to call back, although it is the weekend. Wherever I am, I will be considering my position. Thanks to those who have supported me. Rodhullandemu 18:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • If my crisis center put me on hold, I think I would look for another crisis center. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
      • "Hello, this is the Admin 'Eh We'll Get Back to You Later' Crisis Center; what issue or problem to you eventually want us to address?" HalfShadow 18:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
has nobody above thought that discussing another editors personal problems here -- however well known they may be to the parties doing the discussion -- is very highly inappropriate? DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Since the one problem seems to be connected with the other, it's hard to avoid. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Just to remind everyone .. Rod's account is not compromised and he has not made any controversial administrative actions, as such no action is required, if someone wants to open a RFC user then that is their privilege but I don't see anything worthy of Admin action here and suggest under the situation the thread would be better off closed and allow a little time for things to settle down a bit. Off2riorob (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • If the guy is truly having blackout periods, how can he be trusted to be an admin, just because nothing bad happened this time? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I think the blackout is a little tongue in cheek, from a contributor feeling a bit under attack. Off2riorob (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Then maybe he needs to come here and tell us what parts of what he's saying are true, and what parts are just kidding. I don't know the guy, so I have to take him at his word at this point. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd have to say that I essentially agree with Uncle G on this. A major problem at Wikipedia is the sense of entitlement of long-time editors about their level of discourse. At times, when I read threads like this, it's like things are turned on their ear; people seem to feel that WP:UNCENSORED trumps WP:NPA; that is as long as I swear when I attack someone, I can claim, when I am warned or blocked, that it is my right to swear. As long as I swear I can claim that the person who warns or blocks me is doing so because of my use of the swear words, and it allows me to redirect attention away from my antisocial behavior, because I can claim that the block admin blocked me because of "naughty words" and not because my behavior is driving away good editors and making Wikipedia an unfriendly place to work. If you want to avoid getting blocked forever, swear at an admin. Then all you have to do when blocked for that is claim that the other admins are ganging up on you to protect their little club. It's growing tiring. I, like Uncle G, want to avoid assigning blame to anyone here, because that isn't productive. I would, however, like to ask for a general improvement in the level of discourse. This is, ostensibly, an academic and educational venture, and those that participate should do with a sense of enlightened decorum that does not cast a negative light on the entire project. --Jayron32 20:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Um, as far as I can tell, Uncle G did assign blame, and since you're agreeing, I'm still waiting to hear where I've told anyone to STFU. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • You have to laugh. Here we have an administrator calling other editors wankers, but that's apparently consistent with Jayron's "academic and educational venture", so that's OK. It's only not OK when a non-admin does that. Malleus Fatuorum 20:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Its totally true, no one should be calling anyone a wanker, but when said to an IP with five edits who has repeatedly inserted to a BLP that the subject was called a shyster is at least, not the wikicrime of the century worthy of all this. Off2riorob (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • That wasn't what started this episode, just an example of the problem. Interesting that you believe it's OK for an administrator to call some editors wankers though, but hard to reconcile that position with Jayron's "academic and educational venture". Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • No its as I said, not ok to be calling anyone a wanker. I don't really know what is happening with Rod but I don't think we need to do anything to protect the wikipedia right now, he seems to have gone off to sort himself out and when he comes back we can see how he is and go from there. David Haye v Audley Harrison is about to get scrapping, I wouldn't call either of them a wanker. Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • (85,000 ecs) I'm troubled that you view it that way, Off2riorob. The IP did have only five edits, and was inserting what she or he might have thought was a correctly sourced edit. When the IP tried to insert the material,[30] and then tried to discuss it with Rod, it was cursed at both times. Is that how admins treat IPs who don't yet likely know or understand Wiki policies? More concerning to me is that Rod has the lead edit count on that article, so even though this is not use of admin tools, it's how he interacts with an IP who is possibly still learning the ropes, and thought those edits were fine. A regular editor would be blocked for this. We have several editors here tossing about claims about who's to blame for the declining level of discourse on Wiki, at the same time that we have an admin using this kind of language to an IP who might not be aware of BLP policy or what a correct source is for one, and has only five edits. Admins are expected to have a certain level of conduct, precisely because other editors may be guided by their conduct and they are expected to enforce conduct. Yet we see precisely the opposite so often right here at ANI. I get as frustrated as the next person by edit conflicts, but Rod was cursing at this IP well before the IP came to Rod's talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I do see issues, what you can do if you think its needed is, there are about six editors here that see a big issue worthy of action and if six users in good standing request recall on his talkpage or here then that could be a route to take. Or perhaps there is consensus here to request he take a months break from using the tools. Off2riorob (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I am quite troubled by the level of discourse on this very page (nothing new, ANI is not equipped to deal with this, and the lack of respect from the peanut gallery certainly isn't helping); I continue to suggest a situation like this is better dealt with by the arbs, with some discretion, and away from the disgusting level of discourse that is typical of ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • My experiences with recall pledges is that they're not worth the bytes in the database to store them. Malleus Fatuorum 22:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Personally I don't think it matters if the admin has pledged or not, if an incident arises and half a dozen good faith users ask for recall and there are not a balance of supporters the admin can't resist it and recently I have seen comments from Jimbo and arbcom that desop discussions should be an easier option and that arbcom would be open to taking them on. Off2riorob (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • But do you really think an RFC/U or recall is the best course of action for an editor who is, by accounts here, experiencing some level of personal difficulty? One thing is to get him to lay off of Malleus, but the bigger picture appears to be more serious. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, I personally would support if there was consensus asking him to take a month away from the tools. This may well benefit any personal difficulty he may be experiencing, and remind him it is not OK to call users perhaps editing in good faith, wankers, but I don't support desoppping. I also think Malleus is more than capable of taking care of himself and he doesn't need or request an interaction order.Off2riorob (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I think you're onto it. If there is general agreement that he has generally been a good admin but who's gotten into a "losing streak", then time off seems to make more sense than de-sysoping. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • OK. I hope Rod has some Wikifriends who are working on this, because other than figuring out how to keep him from poking Malleus, the concern about the compromised account has been answered, and I hope ANI doesn't continue to be a vehicle for some of the disrepect and lack of compassion shown below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Immediate block needed, if compromised[edit]

If the account is compromised, there has to be an immediate block on it. Then the real person can come back to Wikipedia, explain what happened and get on a fast track to re-admin by just editing like he did before. After getting a featured article in place on an article with a similar subject matter as he previously wrote, then he can be fast tracked back to adminship. பின்லாந்துF (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

  • What does writing a featured article have to do with being fast tracked to adminship? Protonk (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Administrators often get the tools after they can show they have made thousands of edits and did a FA. Since there was a question of the account being compromised, the person could re-establish identity. Since we don't have identity cards, a FA is a way to show ability. Most admins have or should have the ability to write a FA. பின்லாந்துF (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
That's like taking a good car salesman and making him a mechanic. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
It's a totally different skillset and set of interests. I've never written an FA and many admins have never written FAs, despite having written dozens or hundreds of articles. Protonk (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

He or she now says the account is not compromised. If so, there has been a psychiatric breakdown and this administrator's tools should be placed on medical leave for a month. A month without tools never hurt anyone. It could be shortened if there is an explanation, like he/she forgot to take his Prozac but is now taking it. பின்லாந்துF (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

  • I would agree. This is a strange case and if someone is having blackout periods they had best not drive or use admin tools. There are any number of us who would be willing to borrow his admin rights for a month, just to help out. I, for one, don't take impairing substances and don't have blackout periods, though I do sleep occasionally. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Some of this conversation is seriously disrespectful. Someone like Raul (on a recent RFA) needs to step in and starting putting some people in their place. (Uncle, Bugs, HalfShadow, and Mjroots, I'm looking at you.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Is the admin's behavior under scrutiny, or isn't it? I don't know the guy, I don't recall having any particular interaction with him. But I'm alarmed at what I'm seeing here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
If you're truly alarmed, you could express that with a bit of respect for the person we're discussing. Starting now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
What I'm alarmed by is the apparent malfeasance of the admin. His personal problems should not even be a part of any discussion here - but he has made them so. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Move for an interaction ban[edit]

I will say first that I hold Rod in very high esteem. Let's not forget the good he does, most of it behind the scenes. Like any other admin, the only time the community hears of what he does is when he fucks up (and, yes, even admins, including myself, fuck up on occasion). That said, I move for a community-imposed interaction ban between Rod and Malleus (as suggested above by Sandy Georgia) because this is not the first time the two of them have come to the wiki-equivalent of blows and, whoever started what, I don't think either has ever had anything constructive to say to the other. This seems to me to be best for both parties (I don't think either especially wants the other to talk to them) and for the Wikipedia community as a whole. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

If an admin is being seriously considered for an interaction ban, something is seriously wrong. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I think you need to try taking off those blinkers. I have been avoiding Rodhullendemu for some time now; it was he who came to my talk page yesterday to issue some semi-coherent threat without any provocation whatsoever, which he now claims to have no recollection of. Yet you want to impose a sanction on me? Get real! Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
If what you say is true, the admin in question needs to take a long vacation effective immediately. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
The last post by MF to Rod's talkpage was two weeks ago. Unless there is an indication that MF has been pursuing Rod elsewhere, then I think we should take him at his word. Skomorokh 19:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't doubt that Rod is the aggressor here and I didn't mean to imply that Malleus was at fault, merely that a one-way interaction ban seems pointless to me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I find that rather revealing. I have been avoiding Rodhullandemu and will continue to avoid him, interaction ban or no. It is he who has not been avoiding me. Obviously you don't believe me though, so as the non-admin in this incident I must spend some time on the naughty step, even though I have done nothing wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I do think that Rod should have an interaction ban with Malleus, but considering how this thread has evolved, I don't think an RFC/U is the most helpful next step, and suggest this should proceed to the arbs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the ARBCOM will take this issue on, nothing has actually happened. Off2riorob (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect. They have taken action with other sysops when "nothing ha[d] actually happened" yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, yes, I have seen them step in .. is this an emergency threat to the integrity of the project? Off2riorob (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Other case wasn't either: we have an admin using tools in the same editing session where he himself characterizes one of his other posts as "not a rational edit". And, yes, I do think his actions wrt Malleus compromise Malleus's time and ability to work on top content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Well surely it's worth exhausting all other realistic possibilities, first? The interaction ban would be enforceable by block, so iff Rod violates it, he may well end up blocked for a substantial amount of time and if he doesn't, there's no need for any action, so ArbCom seems a little premature (though not disproportionate). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Getting him to stop poking Malleus would help part of the situation, but what about IPs he tells to shut up for fuck's sake and calls wankers? SandyGeorgia (Talk)
  • Support for a period of time, maybe three months. It should be broadly construed to include comments to one another and about one another anywhere except at certain forums like ARB or ANI. JodyB talk 19:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Except at ANI? That's where several of the diffs originate. Would you mind removing the subhead? This is not a vote-- that would be RFA-- it's a discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
No problem although RFA is not the only place !votes are cast. You are correct but we are talking about a ban and those parameters can be considered. I think this is the current hotspot but apparently not the only one. We just need to move this along.JodyB talk 20:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Just as a matter of interest JodyB, what sanctions are you proposing should be applied in case one of us breaches the terms of this interaction ban? Would they be applied equally to the admin (Rodhullandemu) and the non-admin (me)? I somewhat doubt it. Malleus Fatuorum 20:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
The particulars can be determined by the community but I would only support it if they were applied equally. JodyB talk 20:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Because? Again, this is not RFA, some sort of rationale would be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Sandy, I know this is not an RFA and I think you know that too. I agree with HJMitchell above. I think these sorts of disagreements are time wasting drama fests but must still be dealt with. Now if you oppose the ban, please say so. If you have changed your mind from your comments above please clarify. When associations between two users become so spoiled that the broader community must step in there is a problem. And, as you have noted, it is not the first time. It would be nice if people could just walk away from each other but that doesn't seem to have happened. This is all I intend to say until some decision is reached on wheather a ban is a good idea. JodyB talk 22:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
You don't seem to be following the sitution you're opining on: Rod has consistently and aggressively come after Malleus, to the point that NW called for a lengthy block because Rod invoked Malleus in conversations when MF wasn't involved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I find it very curious that you want to impose sanctions on me when I have done nothing wrong. Why not try dealing with the problem, Rodhullandemu? Malleus Fatuorum 21:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Support Obviously it is better for the project, and him, that RH&E is interaction banned from MF - and that the ban of MF from interacting with RH&E is simply an extension of the primary restriction, and not a comment upon MF's rather individual approach to syop intercourse. If by such a restriction the effect on RH&E's general contributions is also improved, so much the better. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I have no approach at all to "syop [sic] intercourse", and I don't recall ever having had intercourse with a sysop, nor any desire to. Your suggestion that I should be banned from doing something I am not doing just strikes me as bizarre. Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I might have worded it to strongly in that you should be banned from interacting with RH&E, since I should not like to set that precedent (see how many admins you do not have any "approach to" to would like to sign up for that!), but that there is a commiserate non interaction undertaking from you re RH&E. The community formally bans RH&E, on the understanding that you will do likewise. I would also like to point out that I am considered quite desirable by many persons, some of whom are aware that I am an admin - you seem to be the one with the bizarre tastes... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Additional inappropiate edit summary:

On an article where Rod is the leading editor by editcount. This is the same IP who was later attempting discussion on Rod's talk when it was cursed at, so I don't think Uncle G's conclusion that Rod was cursing at SineBot is founded (and even if he were, how would the IP know that?) If Rod were a regular editor, he would be blocked for these edits. If anything, it seems he is showing extreme stress from too much time on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

  • I actually said that it was an angry edit summary, at the top of this discussion. What I said that it wasn't was evidence that the account had been compromised; which it plainly isn't. It's quite evidently frustration at multiple edit conflicts being expressed angrily and badly. (My translation of "Gah! Edit conflict NUMBER THREE!" would have made the same point without the vulgarities.) And yes, that latter is another poorly expressed edit summary. I have no, and I think no-one else has any, reason to think that Rodhullandemu has lost control of xyr account. We only have Rodhullandemu challenging you to prove that xe hasn't lost control of xyr account, which was a silly way of making the point that xe was actually trying to make, because of course people took that as a reason to go into "ZOmG! Hacx0rEd adMin aCCount!!!!!" mode. Silliness here on everyone's part, including Rodhullandemu's, as I said.

    Such poor typing is an indication of something extraordinary, but guesswork as to what it is is pointless. If things are as stated on their face, and what is stated above is not simply another ill-chosen way to explain one's point, then we need two things to happen from this: everyone shaping up their behaviour and not going around telling one other to "fuck off" and calling one another "arse" any more; and Rodhullandemu talking to the arbitration committee in private, as has been done in the past in other such cases, about the matter.

    If you think that other editors would be blocked by now, then you need to read more administrators' noticeboard discussions. ☺ Part of the reason that so many problems seem to be perennial ones is that in fact many ordinary editors are given chance after chance (in general a good thing, of course). To pick a recent example that was just on this noticeboard: Witness McYel (talk · contribs), who did some fairly strange and ill-advised things, a lot stranger than (apparently) writing edit summaries under the influence, but yet retained the edit tool, had a little experiment in July with making edit summary accusation of "racist lies" at Jesus, and had to go as far as doing this over a whole load of article talk pages before being blocked again. Uncle G (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

    • Uncle, your posts are difficult to read (and too long and off-topic :) I'm a "she", Rod's a "he"; I don't know what that other stuff represents. Other than that, you've got still got quite a lot wrong there, but this situation has been resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec to Uncle G)Are you seriously suggesting that Rodhull's behaviour is not his responsibility but is somehow the fault of assorted other nameless editors who use naughty words from time to time? If he has no more autonomy than that, what is he doing with the tools? Your general all round tickings off and exhortations to better behaviour, as in people took that as a reason to go into ZOmg..., everyone shaping up their behaviour, silliness here on everyone's part are as offensive as they are unhelpful.Fainites barleyscribs 23:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

for what its worth[edit]

I have left Rod a note about the discussion here and when he comes back editing we can see what he has got to say for himself. I don't see this thread as creating anything more constructive at the present time and if there are no objections I suggest we close it down. Off2riorob (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with shutting it down: the two issues are resolved. Rod's claim that his account was compromised was retracted by him, and he's been asked to stop interacting with Malleus. The rest is up to others; I wish him well in resolving whatever is affecting him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards[edit]

Resolved: Blocked for now. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

68.231.63.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Could someone look at the edits being made to the Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards article by user talk:68.231.63.115 I can't tell if the person editing it is trying fix it or vandalize it. All I can say is he keeps making misspellings and his talk page leads me to think he is vandalizing, but I don't what to revert because I am not sure. Thanks! --CRJ200flyer (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It's someone fooling around with the 2011 section. If it continues, please take it to WP:AIV and they'll bring the hammer down. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
He has continued, and I'll do it myself unless someone has beaten me to it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I posted him to AIV, but they're taking their time about it, so we'll just have to keep reverting until someone wakes up there. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The final Plastic Beach edit is not obviously vandalism. It superficially agreed with Doncamatic. Uncle G (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • The user absolutely refuses to respond to or heed the many challenges on his page, and given his other weird entries, anything he posts is naturally assumed to be vandalism, or at least "messing around" with various articles. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I've blocked the IP for the disruptive edits. If the user wishes to communicate, explain themselves, and request unblock I'll defer to other admins to respond as necessary. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • User was clearly vandalizing; the hosts and other details involving Kids' Choice 2011 won't be announced until March at the earliest (they don't even have a venue yet), and there's no way based on both musical content and logistics that Gorillaz 'plays' the KCA's. Good block. Nate (chatter) 02:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you have Sheldon Lennard Cooper in a can? Would you like help putting him in one?[edit]

I was watching The Big Bang Theory tonight, when one of the characters mentioned Wikipedia. To be precise, it was Amy who mentioned it, the nerdiest of three women in the scene. These women were having a slumber party, & Amy, who had never been to a slumber party, consulted Wikipedia for ideas of what to do at one. Which led me to look at Slumber party, where I found a rather surprising assertion which I reverted. (This is the reason for my comment to Wil Wheaton in the edit summary.)

Silly me. I had no idea this assertion about "harmless experimentation in lesbianism" was an important part of the plot of tonight's episode. (I should mention here that Wil Wheaton had nothing to do with that episode, to make it clear that I am not violating any of the rules regarding WP:BLP.)

I'm not sure what more need to be done at this point than perhaps semi-protecting this article. Or maybe we can call up one of the show's creators & ask him if his refrigerator is running. But I thought some folks here might like to read about this as a change from the usual WikiDramaz. -- llywrch (talk) 05:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Ehh...I would say semi-protection not needed, most likely. It's now several hours after the show aired, and nothing has happened since you're revert, so it's not exactly moving at a fast pace. I think if a few people here who will be on for another couple hours would volunteer to watchlist it, we should be good. This might be worth posting at Wikipedia in culture, though. =) Ks0stm (TCG) 05:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
That also looks like a coincidence, but I could be wrong as I don't watch that show. We're officially cool now! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Never having seen the show in question, I'm curious how Sheldon Leonard figures into the old joke about Prince Albert. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Fixed. Wil Wheaton, Dr. Cooper's arch nemesis, made me confuse the two. (And I should know how to spell Wheaton's name; I happen to have his autograph.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
    • OK, so how does Sheldon Cooper connect with the old "Prince Albert" joke? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I'd prefer Wil Wheaton in a can. Several of them. HalfShadow 09:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Why do you want several Wil Wheatons? Uncle G (talk) 10:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Not several; several pieces. HalfShadow 10:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Baseball bugs: watch the show. Especially this episode, "The 21-Second Excitation". Now I know why I was the first Admin to catch this vandalism: almost no one else on Wikipedia appears to be interested in watching a tv show about the social foibles of a bunch of nerds. Then again, if no one here is interested in the activities of other nerds, then WTF are all of you reading WP:AN/I? -- llywrch (talk) 01:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I have only recently begin watching reruns of the show. As I'm not typically considered either a nerd or a geek, the show did not originally interest me. I have been quite surprised that I'm often laughing louder than I did at either Frasier or Friends. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks and Sockpuppetry[edit]

Resolved: Done, by MuZemike who beat me to it

Please block Garyseven (talk · contribs) who has personally attacked me here and here by vandalizing my user and user talk page. Since 2007, he has been part of a sockfarm chronicled here. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I have determined that the Chris Dodd troll is the same as the sockpuppets of Kim Cardassian (talk · contribs). Therefore there are many sleeper accounts listed here that should be blocked as well.--William S. Saturn (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, I confirmed and blocked a few more from the sock drawer, but the rest are stale and will need any ol' admin to handle without CU. –MuZemike 04:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar[edit]

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

Not sure this is the right place to post this, since the article is currently under discretionary sanctions imposed by Arbcom.

The Arbcom decision provides discretionary sanctions - after a warning - if an editor "repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioral standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia" on Gibraltar-related articles, and explicitly reminds editors to assume good faith. In light of this serious accusation of bad faith and the editor concerned's refusal to withdraw it in that thread (twice), I should like to ask that an uninvolved administrator give such a warning to User:Imalbornoz. Pfainuk talk 23:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

For information, I've walked away from this discussion as I saw it producing nothing productive. I'm only commenting here as Pfainuk drew this to my attention. To my mind, its a rather lame dispute that could easily have been resolved through discussion. Rather silly really, goodnight one and all. Justin talk 23:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I hope that Imalbornoz will respond here. The line that Pfainuk found offensive was "Have you looked at any source at all? Or is it just the usual disruptive edit warring just for the sake of it?" EdJohnston (talk) 01:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
There was also the line "I get that you prefer that Wikpedia's users get the wrong information (for I don't know what absurd reason)." Pfainuk talk 07:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Justin A Kuntz is in fact showing a very WP:disruptive behaviour after his return from his 3 months topic ban, trying to impose controversial edits (which had been under discussion for over a year and upon which a consensus had been -finally- reached during his absence: this is his first edit after his return; it had been under discussion from July 2009 until April 2010, and then a consensus was reached), edit warring[31][32][33][34][35][36], accusing other editors[37][38][39][40], going into endless discussions (see his first and second comments in the talk page after his return from the topic ban, not exactly very uncontroversial)...
Please, just take a look at the history of the article and the talk page during and after his topic ban and compare the amount of clear signs of disruptive editing: battleground type discussions, accusations, reverts... (as a reference, look here for the typical signs that the WP guideline lists:[41])
Regarding what I suppose triggered this report: I suppose that seeing Justin revert the article to a version that he obviously knew was wrong[42][43] (please see the edit summaries) has been the last straw. I try to assume good faith, but he keeps sticking to a behaviour that strikes me as not too WP:COMPETENT. That's what I've meant with the comment that EdJohnston brings from the talk page. Regarding user Pfainuk, he is a quite more reasonable editor, although I suppose that his friendship with Justin makes him see the latter in a (not too justified) positive light.
It would be nice if an admin could take a look and see whether any discretionary sanction is justified on Justin or any other editors -including myself- in order to make it less painful to keep improving Gibraltar related articles. Thank you very much. Imalbornoz (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
What Justin wanted here was for you to stop and discuss the edit. Instead, you edit warred to keep it in, accusing him of bad faith. This is despite the fact that you were adamant earlier this week that no disputed edit could possibly go into the article until it had achieved consensus. In terms of the content dispute, let me suggest the possibility that the word "Gibraltarian" might have two meanings: that it might refer both to status and to residency. I note that the original version was linked to precisely the statistic on which you base your objection. This was certainly not a case in which bad faith was the only possible assumption. And none of this should be new to you - even if you didn't think of it at the time, I pointed it out when I asked you to withdraw on talk. If you had done so, we would not be at ANI.
For the benefit of admins, I note that when Imalbornoz says "consensus was reached", what this means is that all editors who disagreed with him either were topic banned or had left following Arbcom and the period leading up to it. Justin has come back and reopened those discussions (and opened others), without significantly repeating the behaviour that Arbcom topic banned him for. Over the last week or two we've had a detailed discussion with good faith assumed on all sides, and reached a consensus on one of the issues - IOW we've done exactly what we're supposed to be doing.
During this time, there have been some ill-advised edits and some low level baiting. Imalbornoz has been fully involved in this: search for "SYN" on the talk page, and you'll see Imalbornoz repeatedly insisting that anything that was not a direct quotation from a source was original synthesis, despite multiple editors pointing out otherwise. Imalbornoz brings up Justin edit warring - well look who was on the other side of those edit wars and you'll see it was Imalbornoz. The atmosphere hasn't been perfect, but it has nonetheless been a marked improvement on what was there before Arbcom, and I didn't feel a need to bring any of it up here.
And then we had this. The sort of accusation I reference at the start of this thread is the reason we ended up at Arbcom in the first place. It was uncalled-for, unnecessary and very damaging to our potential for progress. And nothing that Justin has done could possibly justify it. Which is why I ask that Imalbornoz get a warning under the Arbcom sanction. Pfainuk talk 09:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of the case, Justin's behaviour, of systematically reverting every edit by other contributors three times in a row, without raising an actual content objection to them, simply for the sake of obstructing them, is plainly unacceptable. For an editor who has just come back from an Arbcom-imposed topic ban, this is more than a bit troublesome, and will certainly be met with further sanctions. In this situation, the line "have you looked at the source? Have you looked at any source at all? Or is it just the usual disruptive edit warring just for the sake of it?" is not a personal attack; it is a precise and amply warranted description of his behaviour. Fut.Perf. 09:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Justin's topic ban has been over for more than three months now, so I'd certainly quibble "just come back". It's not as though he showed up immediately on the expiry of his topic ban in August and started up the same behaviour as before. He came back two months later and has not repeated that behaviour: discussion for the last month was going relatively well, particularly in the last week or two - until this message from Imalbornoz.
And do you really think that it's "amply warranted" to announce that an editor "prefer[s] that Wikpedia's users get the wrong information"? That was the accusation that I found the more inappropriate, given specific Arbcom remedies about assuming good faith. Getting consensus on those articles is already difficult and comments such as these only make it harder. Content objection? Yes, a content objection was raised on talk before these accusations were made. The original edit was uncited (see the edit summary for the first revert) and went into detail on the demographic mix of Gibraltar in the first paragraph of the lede. Pfainuk talk 09:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say that I agree with Future Perfect. Since Justin returned from his ban we have been struggling with his inability to conduct a useful discussion. I did produce a rather long comment at this diff, concluding with "I do have a suggestion which I hope will allow Justin's knowledge and interest to be used constructively. If we all wish to put a suggested edits on the talk page, with references, and then to engage in clear, relevant, and specific discussion in accordance with Wikipedia's principles, this would be welcome and useful. I really hope that he does so." (The comment might have been more appropriate at Justin's talk page, but that has a notice requesting me not to comment there.) In general however I have stayed quiet and done my very best to produce alternative consensus solutions - it is pleasing to note that we have in one case succeeded, and I was really hoping that we would take this as a template for further progress.
Then we come to the current issue: Justin's reversion with the summary "(rv whilst I don't necessarily disagree, all changes apparently have to be discussed and agreed in talk first (and a cite would be nice))". He didn't disagree with the facts, which are uncontroversial and are indeed, as specified, fully referenced in another article. This is a straightforward example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and his summary relates to his inability to grasp discussion procedures, including my attempts at explanation above.
Imalbornoz then corrected the facts and supplied an authoritative reference. I breathed a sigh of relief and hoped that the matter was over. Justin returned with a reversion to information known to be wrong and the still pointier comment "(rv pls discuss in talk page, apparently there is a requirement for each and every change to be discussed in detail)". I moved the detail from the lede to an appropriate section, desperately hoping that this would be the end of it. In the hope of pacimollifying Justin, I also made a comment in a new section on the talk page. Justin reverted yet again to the known incorrect information, emphasizing pointiness with the summary "(rv pls explain why any change I propose must be subject to scrutiny but not anyone else?)". Imalbornoz then corrected the facts yet again and, at the moment, there the matter stands.
I can best summarize by repeating what I wrote in the earlier Arbcom case: "I feel there is one and only one editor whose improvement or absence is essential to enable the discussion to progress. All others, however strong their opinions, seem open to rational debate." I have just reviewed the entire current talk page; none of us is perfect, but, in my long-considered and often-reinforced opinion, Justin's incompetence at discussion, energy, sense of grievance, and inability to peep outside his own fixed position disqualify him from constructive editing in any area where serious underlying disagreements of principle make consensus difficult. Gibraltar has a notoriously intractable international dispute, and I do not believe that he is able to contribute constructively to the relevant articles. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Or it is a case of BRD. Why you saw a revert and thought the best move was to revert makes me question why you persist in stirring up tensions while giving the impression you are some how some neutral mediator. You are about as neutral as FoxNews and worse at hiding it. --Narson ~ Talk 18:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello FPAS, long time no see. I would have been more comfortable with your comments if perhaps you'd thought to mention that we were in dispute some time ago over the deletion of Fair Use images and that in the deletion review that overturned your deletions you were rather bad tempered, indulged in personal attacks directed toward myself and ultimately it lead to an RFC/U on your behaviour. In answer to your comment, I did in fact discuss the matter on the talk page pointing out that the wikilink that was erased actually discusses demographics and makes a distinction between native born and resident Gibraltarians.

I note that the editor Richard Keatinge had in fact noted that there was some merit in my reversions, noting the lede fixation and introducing details that really were not appropriate for the lede. I suppored him in that comment. I also made it plain that I had no intention whatsoever of edit warring but wished to have a mature and level headed discussion. Really the dispute was rather WP:LAME and when it resulted in further personal attacks, well I thought it best to simply walk away and go to bed on it.

I am glad that Richard Keatinge has drawn attention to his 2000 word essay entitled incompetence, which is nothing but a personal attack from beginning to end. In that personal attack he assets that I do not make my edit proposals clear. For example I proposed a change to the lede qualiifying the devolved powers of Gibraltar Government see [44], if perhaps someone could make a suggestion as to how I can make a proposal plainer, then I would be interested to hear it. Richard claims this is unclear and sought comment on a completely different proposal asserting it as the edit I proposed to make. The two editors following him, however, immediatly understood exactly what I meant.

I find it interesting to also contrast Richard's pre-occupation with my behaviour, with his habit ignoring of Imalbornoz's disruptive behaviour. He has set himself up as a "neutral arbiter" but in fact is far from it. Imalbornoz has seriously misrepresented sources in support of edits and in manner which stretches good faith to its absolute limits. Imalbornoz's behaviour in filibustering talk page discussions goes without comment, his personal attacks go without comment. And Richard himself indulges in personal attacks such as his comments here.

I note that I have not been disruptive, I haven't edit warred, I have discussed content in good faith and as far as possible focused on content rather than editors. Pfainuk posted here in good faith a request to have admin oversight on bad conduct by Imalbornoz, it is immediately deflected into an attack on another editor.

He alleges that I'm not prepared to listen and be open to debate. Well it is perhaps best to illustrate that is untrue by way of an example. See WP:NPOVN#Ceuta, Melilla and Gibraltar where I withdrew my edit proposal following outside feedback. It is nonetheless illustrative that whilst I posted a neutral question seeking outside opinion, Imalbornoz immediately posted to influence discussion and Richard followed this up by stating that we didn't need outside opinion.

I have never shrank from the fact that earlier this year my behaviour was not up to wikipedian standards. I apologised unreservedly for my conduct. I have made an extra effort to avoid a repeat of such behaviour, including seeking feedback from User:Atama to ensure there was not a repeat of my previous conduct.

Imalbnornoz and Richard Keatinge seem unwilling to let go of the past and acknowledge their own disruptive behaviour, simply because they were not sanctioned by arbcom. Their defence here is to adopt a previous practise of discouraging discussion with walls of text and when their own conduct is examined to adopt the Unclean hands defence spraying around accusations to deflect attention from their own disruptive behaviour. Their behaviour is showing severe signs of WP:OWN on the article, whereby the content they impose is the "consensus". I consider that they are also indulging in WP:BAIT to elicit an intemperate response. I have received a lot of abuse from both and I haven't bitten. Personally as I have repeatedly stated I would like to focus on content, instead I find myself repeatedly defending myself against personal attacks and any proposal I make requires interminable amounts of talk page discussion to move forward. Even when I propose content that is well written, reliably sourced, relevant and giving due coverage it is reverted out of turn. And in truth the stated objections are not rooted in grounds relevant to wikipedia, rather is seems it depends on who the editor is. Justin talk 12:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

ADD: On reflection bringing up the prior dispute with FPAS was uncalled for and unnecessary. Although we had a heated debate, FPAS has never demonstrated any lasting resentment over that incident and has always been civil toward me. I apologise unreservedly for doing so and have redacted my comments. Justin talk 16:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course that I am ready to strike through any personal attack I've made. On the other hand, I don't believe my comments were personal attacks. IMO, they just were relevant questions brought up by the fact that:
  1. Justin had just reverted an uncontroversial correction (the number of Gibraltarians living in Gibraltar is not controversial, as far as I know)
  2. that the correction was sourced (a statistical publication by the Government of Gibraltar itself where it "literally" says that there are 23,907 Gibraltarians in page 2, whereas the article said that there were 30,000 Gibraltarians)
  3. that -therefore- there was nothing positive to come out from the reversion, and Justin himself has recognised that he wasn't against the edit and that the dispute was LAME
  4. that the only possible outcome of this reversion was to offer erroneous information to WP users
  5. that Justin had reverted this not once but THREE TIMES in a row to corrections from THREE DIFFERENT EDITORS
  6. that Justin DOES in fact edit war very usually (before and after his topic ban)
To me, this looks as if Justin was edit warring as he usually does; and I could not find any explanation to this edit war except, maybe, that he was trying to make a WP:POINT. All of this, obviously, looked very disruptive. Therefore, I made my questions (more descriptive -in my opinion- than offensive) trying to make him either realise what he was doing and/or give an explanation. One admin who has witnessed Justin's activity some time ago seems to that this was probably more descriptive than offensive.
I insist: of course, I am ready to strike through and apologise for anything that is a personal attack.
Please, I also ask admins to please take a look at the situation and please apply discretionary sanctions in order to avoid the waste of time (and hundreds of Kb of text) in the Gibraltar talk page whenever Justin is not topic banned. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 12:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
One of the things that was brought to my attention during the arbcom case was there was never any circumstances under which being uncivil was tolerated on wikipedia. The fact that I was frustrated with the endless and interminable discussions was not one of them. Imalbornoz's incivility on this occasion was completely unwarranted and now the fact that I avoided interacting with him whilst he was being uncivil is being used to further his personal attack.
I did not edit war, if you in fact read the history of Gibraltar in recent weeks the only person to indulge in edit warring was Imalbornoz see [45], [46], [47], [48], [49].
If he had chosen to take the discussion to the talk page, I would have pointed out to him that Gibraltarian can refer to both residents and native born or naturalised. The wikilink he has removed from the article explained this should someone wish to know more but now that link is no more since Imalbornoz edit warred it out of the article. See [50] where I explained that the wikilink made the obsessive expression of pedantic detail in the lede completely unnecessary. Having explained that, Imalbornoz did not even bother to consider my comment but rather launched into two completely unnecessary personal attacks here [51] and here [52] both occurring after I had added an explanation and the latter following an amplification of it [53]. After being urged to remove his uncivil remarks he responds with further personal attacks [54].
WP:CIVIL#No personal attacks or harassment is a core part of the civility policy. It reminds editors that constantly referring to past behaviour is uncivil in itself. Both Imalbornoz and Richard Keatinge are constantly referring to the arbcom case - I have not at any point repeated the behaviour that lead to me being sanctioned by arbcom, despite the provocation of constantly referring to the past. The issue here is Imalbornoz was seriously uncivil on Talk:Gibraltar, he has compounded that being continuing to be uncivil by deflecting attention from himself by raking up the past and to my mind the non-apology above is simply rubbing salt into the wound.
He refers to the hundreds of kb in text in Talk:Gibraltar well coming from an editor where 95% of his contributions are in Talk:Gibraltar and who along with Richard Keatinge deters outside opinion with huge walls of text that accusation seems a bit rich to me. My content suggestions have merit, they're well written, reliable sourced, conform to NPOV and DUE and they're being rejected out of hand by two editors who seem to think they WP:OWN the article to an alarming degree. It is not a healthy situation and I for one would welcome some admin intervention.
I have never in my time on wikipedia sought that sanctions be imposed on anyone. In fact I've usually gone out of my way to avoid it. However, I think the time has come to issue a warning under the discretionary sanctions to Imalbornoz. He is being seriously uncivil. I also consider that Richard Keatinge merits a similar warning as he is constantly bringing up the arbcom case and re-inforcing uncivil behaviour by joining in with the personal attacks. Both are displaying precisely the same lack of good faith that resulted in the arbcom case but just because they weren't sanctioned they think they have clean hands. They do not, the discretionary sanctions were applied to all those involved. Justin talk 14:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to note concern over phrases like 'and I have to warn you that it can get you banned again.'. No. Imalbornoz doesn't have to warn him nor is it appropriate - It is an attempt to bully, to coerce a response deemed favourable to the poster. --Narson ~ Talk 18:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I'd add that we appear to be seeing the old "walls of text" tactic here. If enough long messages are posted, that should dissuade enough people from reading them to ensure that nothing happens.
The simple question for admins is this. Does the Arbcom ruling apply to Imalbornoz? If so, admins must be prepared to warn him when he so egregiously breaks Wikipedia behavioural policy. If they are not, it is difficult to see any particular reason why he - and indeed other editors - will not disrupt progress on this article through continued bad behaviour. Pfainuk talk 19:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Just FYI. I have added the page to my watchlist, have read this entire discussion and the terms of the findings at the case page. At this moment there have been no significant edits in over 24 hours. Of course the findings apply to all. Keep your heads and get back to the talk page. I am around as needed. JodyB talk 19:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Radiopathy's violation of indefinite 1RR restriction[edit]

Resolved: User:Radiopathy blocked two weeks and placed on indefinite 0rr restriction by User:Gwen Gale. N419BH 18:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Radiopathy is on indefinite 1R restriction, but within 24hrs Radiopathy has violated that restriction. See here and here. Radiopathy may also be WP:WIKIHOUNDING: he made an revert to an seemingly innocuous of mine at Media Matters for America edit, and reverted another edit of mine at Alcoholics Anonymous[55]. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

One change, one revert. Not a violation of the restriction. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how you can argue that, given that both edits make the same change; they both revert the same edit. Just because they change something else while reverting doesn't make it any less of a revert.— dαlus Contribs 22:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with HJ. Radiopathy (RP) has made a revert under the guise of a change, and after an accepted compromise was in place, made another revert, added up to a 1RR violation. But I believe I could be more thorough in making the case, and will attempt to rectify this. RP made the initial change Nov 11, with the edit summary stating "the band has>the band have." After a couple of reverts, discussion ensued on the talk page next day. The issue was whether to say "the band has" or "the band have", as RP said in the edit summary noted above. While the discussion was underway and consensus not yet achieved, I made a change that made the "have" vs "has" argument moot by using wording that used neither. After this change 13 RP made the first revert, saying "per discussion" reinstating the contentious phrase "the band have" (for which is still exists no consensus developed). RP's second revert came within 24rs the edit summary of which mistakenly said my change was "undiscussed", though another editor had by then approved the change whole heartedly Another editor has since restored my change.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I may be assuming bad faith here, but even after an experienced user who has been here far longer, and has far more edits than RP tells him that genre changes are not vandalism, he insists that it is. I'm sure I don't need to say so here, since I'm sure everyone knows this is not the case, but to be clear; vandalism is a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia, as said at the first line on WP:VANDALISM. To this end, it seems they are trying to game their 1rr restriction, as 'reverting vandalism' was exempt from it.— dαlus Contribs 00:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I also disagree. He clearly undid the work of other editors two times. It doesn't have to be an undo to be a revert. You should know that.--Crossmr (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Per WP:RV "More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I spent quite a while looking at the recent history and have just rechecked it. I can't see what the first diff was reverting. I see there was a brief edit war over has v have the other day, but the first diff provided above, as far as I can work out, is an unrelated grammatical change from "by the band" to "the band have". Am I missing something or are you gents submitting this as a continuation of the previous edit war? If it's the latter, then a case could be made for a block, but I'd prefer to have all the facts first, so if it's the former, I'd be grateful if someone would supply me with the diff that made the original change to "by the band" which RP is alleged to have reverted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
RP's reversion, read the edit summary, and the original edit that inserted the text, so yes, RP was edit warring.— dαlus Contribs 02:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Hold on, one of those was the wrong diffs; this revert was the original one RP made, which was reverting this edit. RP, in under 12 hours, then made this revert, therefore violating his 1rr restriction.— dαlus Contribs 02:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I appreciate the admin's desire to be careful, and can understand how confusing the timeline can seem. RP has insisted by reverts that the article must say "the band have", and will not accept "the band has" or a compromise that makes the dichotomy moot. In brief, RP made a change on Nov 11, it was reverted, and there followed was an ongoing discussion regarding the revert that never resovled. In the middle of these discussions, I installed a compromise wording on Nov 13. That same day within hours of each other RP reverted to the same disputed wording twice.

  1. RP 1st changed (and I tried to present this instance as a change and not a revert) from "the band has" to "the band have." Nov 11
  2. After a couple of reverts it was left at "the band has" while it was discussed.
  3. I edited the disputed section so neither wording - "the band has" or "the band have" was used. I replaced "a practice the band has generally maintained since" with "a practice generally maintained since by the band." [56]
  4. On Nov 13 RP made the first revert within 24hrs. The wording became "a practice the band have generally maintained since." Though this was sure to be contentious and was not needed, and though the discussion was ongoing and consensus was not established, RP's edit summary said "per discusssion."
  5. The second revert came hours later and it erroneously said "rv undiscussed change." Another editor has already endorsed the compromise.
  6. The current version [57] repudiates RP's revert via the edit summary which said "This is a reasonable way around the disputed construct."

A little background: "The band has" and "the band have" have both been used and reverted back and forth for years, though the "the band has" the first usage to appear years ago. "The band has" had been in place for some time, enough to fairly regard RP's first edit at issue as a change. The reverts are not exact undos, but they reverse the reverses the "actions of other editors...in part" twice within 24hrs.

Coincident has been the Wikihounding cited above, and hostile postings of his which I have deleted from my talk page after he restored them from redacted form.[58]. All of this without provocation on my part. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I stepped through the edits, and agree that it's a clear violation of Radiopathy's 1RR restriction. I have included Diff #1 (from two days earlier) only to show that #2 and #3 are both reverts to his preferred version. His comment 'per discussion' makes no sense because the discussion has reached no conclusion:
Page: The Rolling Stones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Radiopathy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs ·