Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive653

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:AP1929 at it again[edit]

User:AP1929's back, and after his previous tirade, he's immediately started off with a nice personal attack section on Talk:Ante Pavelić [1]. The user, who derives his username from the founding year of the Croatian Nazi Ustaše movement ("1929") and their leader's initials ("AP"), has seen it fit to publicly denounce me as a "communist lover" who "pushes propaganda" and is being "paid to do so". The user has a history of such behavior, he was already warned and blocked for one week [2] because of this same sort of attacks ("comrade direktor"). Do I really need to take this kind of continuous abuse from this guy? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned user. If they persist (and they did only make one edit today, their first in months), please re-report. TNXMan 17:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Huge amount of vandalism following FIFA announcement[edit]

Resolved

There is huge amount of vandalism at 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cup bids and Qatar 2022 FIFA World Cup bid after FIFA announced Russia and Qatar won, can some admin lock them? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

  • You might want to do something about the several empty sections in the article that are the magnets for the soapboxing in the first place. Uncle G (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Anon User talk:60.242.99.59 racial remarks[edit]

Resolved: IP blocked

Hey guys, I'm not 100% sure on how effective blocking anon vandals is, but I would like to bring your attention to the above user. If you check the IP's contributions for 2010, they a peppered with a racist remarks to one degree or another. Especially concerning is the edit on March 23 of this year (which I will not link to) that I just deleted. I don't know what is more concerning...this IP's vandalism...or the fact that the remark was on the talk page of a BLP since March. I'll post a notice about this to the IP now. Thanks, The Eskimo (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, looks like Orange Mike indef blocked the IP, so hopefully that will stop the pattern of behavior. Now, if only we could indef block racism... The Eskimo (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
A couple of questions: Is it proper to block an IP that hasn't edited in months? Is it reasonable to indefinetely block an IP address? This seems kind of harsh for vandalism of the type I see around here all the time. (I'm not necessarily complaining, just curious more than anything.) Deli nk (talk) 17:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The only reason I did this was that this account has a record going back over three years and more of nothing but vandalisms, consistently in the form of racist, sexist, and "everybody's a commie pinko fag" insults. This is apparently a stable IP, and one which has contributed absolutely nothing but hatred for years without heeding any warnings (including a prior block). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I concur. There was definitely a pattern of behavior here that indicates it was the same person vandalizing over and over again. Better safe than sorry, I say, especially since they managed to slip the "N-word" onto a BLP talk page that remained for over half a year. The Eskimo (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. Thanks for the explanation. Deli nk (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Unblock required[edit]

Mclaudt (talk · contribs)

This discussion (link fixed) shows community consensus to unblock the editor in question but the block has not yet been lifted, and the thread has been archived. Can some admin please perform the unblock? I don't think it would be fair for the editor to be inadvertently forgotten. Reyk YO! 22:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

here is the link. There was sort of weak support and a proposal to make the "standard offer". Fainites barleyscribs 22:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
The fact that it was a "community ban" makes it complicated (needlessly, IMHO) in discussion without clear consensus like this; since I can't overrule the community, I feel my hands are tied in coming up with a compromise without having a whole new discussion. I suggest something that was toyed with before during the community ban discussion: a topic ban from Linux or any other free software topic. Plus, he needs to know he's on his ninth life as far as insulting other editors is concerned. If he goes for those terms, I'd unblock. Any objections? Do we need to notify the opposers in the previous unban discussion? I hate community bans. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah. There are more supports than opposes but it's all very thin and weak. I'd go with a ban from Linux/free software for 6 months and then reviewed, with an understanding of a swift re-block if there's any repeat of previous problematic behaviour.Fainites barleyscribs 23:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Unless the definition has changed at some point, a community ban has always been simply a block that no administrator is willing to lift. That language continues to exist on the Blocking Policy. Obviously if theres strong community consensus that someone should not be unblocked that should greatly influence your willingness to lift, but with a roughly even split, as long as you're convinced he wont be too much trouble and is at least making an attempt, you're hands aren't tied at all. -- ۩ Mask 02:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, what you pointed out is a discrepancy in 2 different policies. In blocking policy, it did state that "if no administrator is willing to lift the block, the blocked user is effectively considered to have been banned by the community". However, on the banning policy, ban can be imposed when the subject "exhausted the community's patience". And right now this scenario fits into both sides. What happens when there's no clear consensus but there're admins (i.e. me and maybe others) who're willing to unblock? OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I would probably say the original, but im biased towards what im used to. The wordings been tweaked a bit over the years, but is largely as I remember it. There was an Arbcom case the first time there was literally a single admin willing to unblock who actually did. Basic result of the case was, as far as I remember, going against consensus is a BAD idea, but reblocking without a new offense is wheel-warring, and if the user effs up in the slightest a new indefinite block is not wheel-warring. A kind of slowly evolved organic social contract developed with it that if your the only one willing to spring them then they're your responsibility. All this dates back to like 2007 though, hence my prefacing all of this with references to whether or not it still applies. I largely lapsed out of the wiki for 3 years or so, things like the exhausting the patience of the community came about during that time, so I dont know if they supersede that or not. -- ۩ Mask 05:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • This is silly. I saw a very weak willingness to unblock; I've gone ahead and offered him the topic ban option, which might win over those weakly opposed to the unblock. We'll see what he has to say. --Floquenbeam (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I think the restrictions you've offered as conditions for an on Mclaudt's talk page are fair. If Mclaudt agrees to them they will do a lot to keep him out of the areas that got him into trouble before without being so restrictive that it makes an eventual slip-up inevitable. I appreciate you spending some time with this. Reyk YO! 08:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I've unblocked Mclaudt, based on his acceptance of the topic ban and other restrictions that can be seen on his talk page. Consensus was relatively weak, but I suppose detectable enough to provide me with cover against accusations I'm a cowboy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Is the topic ban going to be dropped automatically after 6 months if there's no trouble? Or discussion about the removal of topic ban can only begin after 6 months? OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I intended (and I think my wording agrees) that discussion can only begin after 6 months. However, I don't think it makes that much difference; if there's no trouble for 6 months, allowing him back into the topic would probably be OK'd here pretty quickly. If there is trouble, then he'll likely be blocked again and it won't matter. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Foreseeable article issues[edit]

It is apparently the time of year when the newest incarnation of the Super Sentai franchise begins to be leaked to the internet. The name of this incarnation has been known since August as that's when the trademarks were filed in Japan, but earlier tonight scans of some proprietary catalog (at least that's as far as I know the source of these images are) have come online, and I feel that within the next 24 hours there will be a heightened level of activity on the various articles I normally deal with.

I would like to know if it would be proper to protect a few page titles from creation for the next couple of weeks until reliable sources actually make their way to the general public, rather than a leak by a Japanese internet citizen who works in the industry and provides the fans with the information. The titles, as far as I am aware, would be as follows:

I have already seen activity announcing the subject as existing, with these edits from earlier tonight and this one from yesterday, as well as edits over the past several months since the name was made publically known in the Japanese language.

So could these 10 page titles be protected from creation for the next two weeks or until reliable sources come out (whichever comes first, of course)?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit dodgy to protect never-created article names owing to a fear that good faith but unsourced content will show up under them (this doesn't seem to be a vandalism worry). You might watchlist all of them instead. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
WP:NO-PREEMPT is pretty clear about it I'm afraid :-( Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
So what should I do should these pages crop up in the next few days, and they're full founverifiable content based on the speculation and poor translation skills of the English speaking fan community?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Would it be possible to create the pages now, as redirects to some heavily-watched relevant super-page? That might serve to direct the edits to that page, where they can be easily caught and properly discussed (important if the editors are acting in good faith: they can be taught), and will also allow any relevant, sourced information to be added to a subsection. 86.161.108.241 (talk) 10:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, the issue still stands that there are no easily accessible reliable sources. I am looking at the trademark registrations for the subject, but the IPDL cannot be linked to easily. I have seen Web Citation used, but I do not know how to use it myself.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Is it truly an emergency? I don't see BLP or vandalism worries with this, only a foreseen lag between content and sources, along with some fears of weak writing. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I was looking for input on what might be an issue given how things have panned out in the past and how they are starting to repeat themselves.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Some of the edits I was apprehensive about happened. But at this stage it was only red links made [3] [4] [5] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Super_Sentai&diff=prev&oldid=400118283.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I do think you should handle it as you see fit and if there is anything an admin can do, don't be shy. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

List of common misconceptions[edit]

This is a frequently-contentious article, even by those of us who get along in general, because of the strict standards we attempt to impose on it to prevent its being too much of a hodge-podge. We have a user who insists, despite lengthy talk page discussion, that he has a right to post a particular theory despite the lack of consensus to do so. He was doing this a couple of weeks ago, and is now getting into an edit war about it.

Since the user won't pay attention to those of us who comprise the Great Unwashed, I wonder if one of the admins with a good way with words would share one or two of those words with the user.

The user has edited under both the registered ID TheThomas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and the logged-out IP 72.187.199.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). There is no accusation of sockpuppetry here, as he has freely admitted jumping from one to the other. The issue is strictly that his behavior is getting excessively disruptive. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me echo Baseball Bugs' concerns. This user apparently thinks he constitutes a consensus of one person, despite being told repeatedly there is no such thing. He first tried to restore contentious material "under the radar" by editing as an IP with no edit summary. When called on that, he waited a couple of weeks, then restored the same contentious material (again with a "consensus" of one person), stating "Added back in due to lack of consensus". Note also that the same editor has tried to add a variety of items to the same page over a period of the last couple of months. Some were accepted without serious objection. So we have taken the time to consider his edits and, when needed, discuss them. But he can't seem to accept the absence of consensus (or any support, for that matter) on this particular item that he has repeatedly restored. Cresix (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
He's also issued a gratuitous "edit-warring" warning to me due to the fact that I removed the blatant falsehood that "birds are dinosaurs". That's a minor issue, but an example of the user's disruptive behavior. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Did the same to me after I reverted him one time. Cresix (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Most appropriate place for this is the edit warring noticeboard Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think so. He hasn't violated 3RR that I know of. His biggest transgression is not respecting the consensus process, not edit warring per se. Cresix (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I notified him before I posted here. He deleted it. And this is not just about edit warring. Take a look at his little user page manifesto which is largely about being confrontational.[6]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I was careful to check the history for that before notifying him; I noticed you mentioned that you would be taking it to ANI, but not that you had done so. It's important to notify users that there is an ongoing discussion about them at ANI so that they may contribute / defend themselves as necessary. In any case it's done now. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Here[7] I told him that I was just about to post at ANI. That was after I had warned him that if he reverted again I was going to do so; and it was before I posted here. So I informed him, and you informed him. So hopefully he's sufficiently informed, at least on that particular point. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought Birds were Dinosaurs? Possibly this is a misconception. Wouldn't the Ref. Desk be a better venue to hash this out? 108.121.139.247 (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Birds are considered "an extant clade of dinosaurs". That doesn't mean that birds are dinosaurs. In any case, the editor refuses to discuss it. That's an interesting idea about posting to the ref desk, though. I'll give that a try and see what the opinions are. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Anon 108, sorry if I am misunderstanding your comment. The issue in this ANI report isn't about birds and dinosaurs. It's about repeatedly adding contentious information (which itself has nothing to do with birds and dinosaurs) without consensus. Cresix (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(@ BaseBall Bugs:) I've never heard of a "Clade of Dinosaurs", but then again I only recently heard that it is called a "Kettle of Vultures". Hope the Ref. Desk sorts all that out for you. 108.121.139.247 (talk) 01:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Not to turn this into a list of cute phrases, but I thought "Murder of crows" should get the absurd phrase award until I saw your "Kettle of vultures". Cresix (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
See here Clade, applies to all organisms, not just dinosaurs, is a term for classifying an organism and its descendants. Heiro 01:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
"A Clade of Organisms/Dinosaurs". Just found "a Battery of Barracudas" as well. Does Wikipedia have an article on the names of gathered animals? 108.121.139.247 (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Are you being intentionally obtuse,or have you not read clade. I is not a name specific to dinosaurs. It is a term describing the relationship between different species. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I have asked for help on this point at the science ref desk. My question is solely "are birds dinosaurs?" I'll be glad to restore that point to the misconceptions article IF it's considered to be true by the experts. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Origin of birds. Heiro 01:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The fact that it calls it "a contentious topic" is sufficient to keep it out of the misconceptions article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
(@Grumpy) I found the article: Lists of collective nouns It is quite extensive. 108.121.139.247 (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it tad strange, that an IP (108.121.139.247) which has only been on line for less the an hour, knew exactly where WP:ANI was? I sense a block evader amongst us. GoodDay (talk) 02:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Let's assume good faith here. There hasn't been any misbehavior, and there is such a thing as a dynamic IP. Cresix (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    • A newbie shows up & comes directly here? something is fishy, but I'll leave it up to you folks. GoodDay (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, definitely suspicious, but he hasn't overtly violated any rules that we know of.

        Regarding the dinosaurs-birds issue, I think the "misconception" needs to be reworded. Would that the subject of this section would address that point. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Well I've been spit on enough for tonight, but I will make one last comment. In response to GoodDay's less than polite comments here and at my original IP talk: AGF should not be too far of a stretch for those that understand Dynamic IP's. If you don't understand them, or on IP's being allowed to edit, you might want to do more reading and less typing for awhile. In fact I have been here for several years editing anonymously. And yes, I do know my way around a bit. When policy dictates that I can no longer edit as an IP, I won't. When my ISP assigns me a permanent address, continuity of my edits will be apparent. Until one of those things happens, I may appear to have no history, or I may appear to have the history that is in fact that of another/others. GoodDay's edits to/about me could be construed as both rude and as a personal attack. Do you have a diff from me that warranted your comments? Looks like I might have pointed Bugs in the right direction with the Ref. Desk. He seems to be making good progress on the Bird/Dinosaur issue. Sorry about the drama. 108.111.90.165 (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    • If you had created an account & signed in, I wouldn't have become suspicious. Anyways, do as you wish. GoodDay (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
      • You look on him differently because he has no account? You do realize that's admitting to violating a couple policies, right? WP:AGF and WP:BITE to name a couple. Grow up please, having an account or not means nothing to the quality or ability of an editor and saying it does is being childish. -- ۩ Mask 06:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
        • As I've accepted the IP's status as not being a block-evading editor, my previous concerns are irrelevant. As for growing-up? I'm 6ft in height & in my late 30's - therefore I can't grow any further. GoodDay (talk) 07:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
        • I don't see how it's unreasonable to assume this was a newcomer in the first place, especially when ANI is the very first venue. That being said, using dynamic IPs which are assigned out of the user's control is very much possible. –MuZemike 07:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay, you need to read and digest Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet. This noticeboard has made the newspapers long since. It's not exactly an unknown little corner of Wikipedia. You need to eliminate from your thinking the notion that people who don't create accounts are automatically third-class citizens contributing in bad faith. That thinking is something that regularly gets people into trouble, from people who get de-Twinkled for erroneously treating edits as vandalism to people who find themselves heavily criticized for excluding policy-based and cogent arguments for no good reason. Uncle G (talk) 11:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Sorry, but past experience has caused me to think in the manner that I do. IMHO, it takes very little effort to create an account & sign in. PS: If anybody has any thing more to say to me on this topic? please bring those concerns to my office (i.e. my talkpage). GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Past experience is not an excuse for a blanket and automatic assumption that editors without accounts operate in bad faith, even were it to support such a conclusion in the first place (which it usually doesn't once one looks at the sum total of one's experiences). Uncle G (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


There is two cases that I have repeatedly added sourced material (usually days apart), which has then been repeatedly reverted by Cresix or Baseball Bugs.

1) I go to the talk page, discuss the removal. I get no response for five days, then I add in the removed piece--"Added back in due to lack of consensus or reasoning for removal". That is my understanding of consensus by silence in WP:CON. If nobody has a reason for removal of material, then it is consensus by silence.WP:SILENCE

2) The second case in which I post material repeatedly (again, days apart) is when the complaint against my material is that the source is bad (broken link, not specific, not a strong enough study). In which case I go find a study which meets the reasonable requirement set by the objecting party, and reinsert the material. Which is my understanding of consensus. Both parties (myself and objector) agree that the article could use stronger supporting references, then I add the references after waiting for any other objections.

I have tried, multiple times, inserting new material directly into the discussion section--in order to skip the insert/delete/insert/delete phase. This has resulted in zero, zero, responses. So, I must put the material into the page to test whether these two will delete it. So far, my experience has been that these two will delete anything they have once removed--no matter how many times I meet their requests for better documentation of the appropriateness of my inserted statement.

The short version; these two are repeatedly deleting good, sourced information without reason, or having given a reasonable standard to meet, deleting after the standard is met. That is edit-warring, and it is bad for wikipedia. Effective discussion has ended, since no reason is given for repeatedly deleting material--besides the circular reason, 'no consensus for addition.' TheThomas (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)72.187.99.79 (talk) 07:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

'Consensus for addition' is not policy of an unchallenged edit. It is the opposite of policy.Wikipedia:DRNC This page does not get its own policy because these two demand it.WP:CONLIMITED
Only when an edit is removed, and in the discussion or edit note, there is listed a reason for removal, which isn't addressed, is consensus needed. The edits I have repeatedly put in with more, and more, sources were not in need of consensus.Building Consensus If an issue was brought up, it was addressed, or the issue was dropped by me. If an issue was not brought up with the edit, I waited 5 days then re-entered the edit, per wikipedia policy.WP:SILENCE
Note: for the character of these edit wars. In this discussion section Baseball Bugs states that I warned him not to edit war after he repeatedly removed material. He feels he was in the right simply because he thinks what I put was " the blatant falsehood that 'birds are dinosaurs'." Apparently, not knowing much about dinosaurs, he feels he is the ultimate judge here. Despite me linking to the Birds article which I was very nearly quoting. The truth wasn't important to him, the quality of references weren't important. What was? His opinion, that's what.
This occurred again with the first iteration of another statement I have been trying to edit into this article. He started the discussion by simply saying, 'no that's wrong'. Without knowing a damned thing about the subject he feels he can flout peer-review, and professional opinions I cited [8]. At this point it has five separate references for one sentence. Not enough? Not if opinion is more important than fact. Having just two sentences in the conversation--one accusing me of being a shill for a corporation--he then baldly asserts "Yes, it's settled: It doesn't belong in the article." The conversation was between me and one other person(Cresix), no consensus whatsoever. Why is it settled? Cuz Bugs says so.
As for Cresix. He thinks I am bound by rules that he really doesn't pay attention to. Wikipedia:DRNC "Don't revert due to 'no consensus' ". He repeatedly says I can't enter things into this article without first having consensus. Guess who's consensus. Bug's and Cresix's. The only two people in the discussion channel. Bugs says no to everything he doesn't understand. With a three person vote, it will always be Cresix that decides the vote...this is not an excellent system. Ownership! Wikipedia policy states that "no consensus" for adding an edit is NOT a reason for keeping that edit out, except in highly refined pages, which this is not. Consensus is for removing material, but this bureaucrat missed that part, and repeats the circular reasoning, "No consensus to make any of the changes currently under discussion." Oddly enough, he usually doesn't even bother to claim a problem with an edit, just says there is no consensus.
As for the particular accusations : "We have a user who insists, despite lengthy talk page discussion, that he has a right to post a particular theory despite the lack of consensus to do so." -- I have no idea what this is referring to. Nearly everything I have posted (all with citations) has been immediately reverted. Often while displaying a lack of understanding in the appropriate field of knowledge. Note "Birds are dinosaurs."
"This user apparently thinks he constitutes a consensus of one person, despite being told repeatedly there is no such thing." --This is wrong. A consensus by silence is a consensus of one person. Which I have been clear about. If no one discusses any complaint about an edit for five days I put it in b/c that makes sense. "Of course, it is impractical to wait forever for affirmation: in the meantime then, sometimes it is best to assume that silence implies consensus." WP:SILENCE
"He first tried to restore contentious material "under the radar" by editing as an IP with no edit summary." --Yes...all edits that aren't declared as "Hey Cresix, I'm editing" are insidious...
Cresix claims, TheThomas gave a gratuitous warning "...to me after I reverted him one time." In fact, nearly all my (many, cited) edits were reverted by one of these two users.
I'm simply trying to make this article better by adding well-sourced material. Unfortunately, instead of this being a cooperative activity it has become a competitive one.TheThomas (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

User:68.96.242.239: Admitted Sock/COI/Legal threats[edit]

At this diff User:68.96.242.239 aka "Will" admits he's a sock of a banned IP (but not whether he also as another wikipedia account), admits he's working for/represents the subject of BLP and threatens legal action against Wikipedia if it doesn't shape up and keep critical WP:RS material off the page. (Specifically that Libertarian Party of FL resolved he should be taken off the Libertarian National Committee, information on their web site, one solid WP:RS and one more news site which probably could be contested.) I warned "Will" about these issues and recommended he email wikipedia with complaints.

I also posted about these issues at Talk:Wayne_Allyn_Root#Conflict_of_Interest_v._POV. I'm pretty sure my notice will be ignored. Until Admins deal with this issue, I will refrain from posting the info in question again (which he's deleted 3 times from original editor, a second editor and me after I added better WP:RS). [Later note: since someone else reverted the material noting COI, I just added the relevant link as ref.] CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Indef'd. I did not see where he claimed to be a sock, would you please post a dif link of that specific here or on my talk page? Thank you. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 19:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps that was the OP's interpretation of "And please remove the ban on my IP address" on the IP's talk page? - David Biddulph (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Makes sense. I'd like to know the other IP, but I hardly think the editor will give it now. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 23:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Umutcan123456[edit]

On November 26, User:Umutcan123456 was indef blocked for wikistalking and overall nonconstructive activity on other user talk pages, especially mine (see User talk:Eagles247/Archive 16). He posted an unblock request earlier today [9] threatening that if the request was declined, he would log out and edit as an IP. He also stated that he has already begun editing as an IP when his first unblock request was declined on November 26. Is this possible for a blocked user to simply log out and edit as an IP? If so, can a CheckUser block his IP? Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not possible for a block user to log out and edit as an IP. An 'autoblock' should kick in and block the associated IP as soon as it tries to edit. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Without resorting to comments prohibited by WP:BEANS, if the user is savvy enough to be able to reset his IP (not an overwhelming intellectual hurdle), autoblocks become ineffective.—Kww(talk) 21:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The autoblock only runs for 24 hours. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 00:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I remember that guy. Annoying troll, to be honest, and a CU would be nice if a rangeblock is feasible, which I think may not be. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this incorrect use of a warning template?[edit]

I gave DD2K this warning for edit warring, I had warned the other party, TVC 15 as well. While TVC 15 took the time to respond to it in a polite manner, DD2K decided to warn me for "improper use" of a warning template. Which do you think was the right thing to do? Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit war? What edit war? I do not see any edit war. :-) I only see the two editors reverting each other only once in the recent history of the article. Where is the 3RR violation? [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 00:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it was an incorrect use of a warning template. I was not in any edit war, and only removed the material recently added by that user improperly. There are no reliable sources(Hotair, a conservative blogger named "Allahpundit ", and blogs) to back up the edits made, and the only sources there were reliable that were added to the references did not back up the edits. How is that an "edit war", with one revert? Per BRD, the other editor should have went to the talk page. Your use if the warning template on my talk page was inappropriate. Dave Dial (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Edit warring is not just 3RR. It's refusal to collaborate with other editors on controversial edits. Also: I would like someone other that DD2K or TVC 15 to comment please. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
(ec)The issue perhaps is what looks like a "brewing" edit war, with the two editors sniping at each other in the edit summaries, with comments they should confine (and refine) to the talk page. TVC 15 is a relative newbie, whereas DD2K has been around for about a year, so he probably didn't appreciate getting templated, especially when he had only reverted once, so Bart jumped the gun a bit. But the users need to use the article talk page to discuss, rather than trying to do it in the edit summaries. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Also: Note the DISCUSS part of the BRD cycle... Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots
Yes, please do note the "DISCUSS" portion of BRD. That is EXACTLY, the portion of the cycle that is being ignored. The "sources" used for the edits did not back up the added material, except for the conservative Hotair blog, which is not a reliable source. Are we going to start linking to PeteFromOmaha on the DailyKos too? Give me a break. Dave Dial (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

DD2K has cited WP:BRD, but it does not support DD2K's position; in fact, it says, "BRD is not a process that you can require other editors to follow. BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes." Also, some of the material that DD2K reverted was sourced accurately to the United States Department of Health and Human Services; I restored it and added a direct quote and links to the Congressional Budget Office report saying the same thing. I think anyone comparing DD2K's comments here to the actual edits and WP:BRD will see that DD2K is perhaps distracted in preparation for a vacation, and not noticing what the pages say.TVC 15 (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, after you were reverted the first time, you should have gone to the talk page with it. Edit warring is futile. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks but it is not entirely accurate to summarize the edit as solely a revert, let alone an edit war: DD2K objected to sources, so I added the CBO as a source and quoted directly from a CBO report, thus addressing the stated objection. We are discussing it on my Talk page, where I have also offered that if DD2K identifies any particular statement as unsupported, I will try to replace it with an official quote.TVC 15 (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I specifically did not add in another revert on that article, even though you restored the exact same material with the exact same sources, to avoid an edit war. Hoping that either someone else would see the violations or I would post to your talk page. Yea, nobody can force you to discuss the edits. But it's part of the process. Dave Dial (talk) 00:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I get the idea that TVC 15 is more at fault here than DD2K. DD2K made only one revert. But TVC 15 then restored his edits (the problem) without discussion. If there is any problem here with any of these two that I can see, it would probably be that. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 00:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Please check the diff[10] before jumping to any conclusion. As the diff clearly shows, my "revert" did in fact address DD2K's objection about sources, specifically by quoting from and linking to the CBO, as well as narrowing the phrasing to match the WP:RS more closely. Also, it seems strange to call me "more at fault" (for a war that didn't happen) when DD2K's statement immediately above ("exact same material with the exact same sources") is demonstrably false. Facts do matter, and I think it would be more helpful to devote this time to getting the facts right in the article rather than opining about fault (especially without even checking diffs).TVC 15 (talk) 00:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandal patrol to Qatar, please[edit]

There's been a lot of IP vandalism on Qatar after the FIFA2022 announcement. I had it on semi earlier today but would be nice if it could stay clear. Would appreciate some extra eyes on it. Thanks. Ronnotel (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Added to my watchlist. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Somebody semiprotected anyway. I did my best. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Some seriously upset soccer fans out there, I guess. Thanks for trying. Ronnotel (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Can developers remove edit filter logs in an emergency???[edit]

I just found an old edit filter log entry sitting around from a few weeks ago which is 100% outing of another editor. Can developers delete the entry, and where can I get the quickest response? Access Denied 02:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The fastest way to contact a developer is in #wikimedia-tech on irc.freenode.net. Nakon 02:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually an oversighter has the ability now to remove AbuseFilter log entries from the public. --Bsadowski1 03:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
When did they fix that? I guess I missed it... Dragons flight (talk) 04:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) In principle, a developer with shell access (this list) could delete an edit filter log. I'm unaware of any circumstance where they have actually done so. The lack of better mechanism to remove edit filter logs has been considered a major unresolved bug. Dragons flight (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
As BSadowski said - email the diff to oversight-en-wp‐at‐wikipedia.org  7  03:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Email sent, thanks everyone. Access Denied 03:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The paranoia about "outing" is excessive. The Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy [11] only requires that information only available by "non-publicly-available methods" not be released. That refers only to logs and information available to admins and above. If personally identifiable information available to any user appears on Wikipedia, that is not a violation of policy. It may be deleted for the usual reasons for deletion, but it's not an emergency situation. --John Nagle (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

User:William S. Saturn [edit]

Resolved: Sarah Palin presidential campaign, 2012 is now at RfD; user has been advised not to renominate for speedy deletion after they've been declined. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

William S. Saturn (talk · contribs) is tendentiously and perhaps pointily retagging this for CSD. He is being rude to me. I literally lack the energy to deal with it. Past my physical limits. Could someone please look at this? thanks. Dlohcierekim 04:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

(notified)Good night! Dlohcierekim 04:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I've declined the tag with a clear reason in the edit summary. This should go to RfD. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I've nominated it at RfD; see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 3 Gavia immer (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, hopefully this will take the heat off it. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Why am I being dragged on here again? I followed all procedures and had my good faith tagging rollbacked as vandalism. The two admins that abused this feature should have it revoked. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

::RHaworth's tag reversion was improperly marked minor and had no edit summary. Dlohcierekim's accused William S. Saturn of "vandalism", and was also marked minor. Both administrators should know better, so two trouts there. One can understand why an editor would restore an edit reverted without explanation or with only of a false accusation of vandalism. Not the wisest move so a trout there, but understandable. Better to simply remove the tag with a "speedy declined, this is not an obvious case for deletion", and for all parties to use the talk page, right? So trouts all around. Three trouts! - Wikidemon (talk) 06:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC) striking my comment as redundant - the trouts say it all - Wikidemon (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Rainbow trout.pngRainbow trout.pngRainbow trout.png
  • William, you can only tag pages for speedy deletion once. Once declined, it has to go to XfD. It's now at XfD, so there's nothing further to do here. Note for future however, if the speedy deletion template has been removed by someone other than the creator, take it to XfD; speedy deletion isn't for controversial cases. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't see that the nomination was declined until Mkativerata's final removal of the tag. Reverting something as vandalism or with no explanation at all is not the same as declining a request. It's actually not much of anything. I would tend to summarily undo an unexplained revert of a viable edit I had made, if I didn't notice it came from an administrator or established editor, and I would be piqued if they made block threats or filed AN/I reports over it before trying to discuss - that looks a bit tendentious. That's the kind of random noise you just have to deal with when you edit here, and I hope admins can be careful enough not to contribute to the noise. Ideally William S. Saturn would have noticed that it was an administrator who removed the tag, and in lieu of an edit summary asked on their talk page if they had intended to decline the nomination, hence the third trout. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Removing the tag is declining the speedy, and may be done by anyone other than the creator of the page. Once removed, the speedy should not be replaced. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I disagree on all counts. Deleting a tag without explanation is not correct procedure, and he who does not follow procedure is in a poor position to insist on procedure being followed. Anyway, looking at the subtext, what we've got here is (a) failure to communicate. It's pretty hard to follow the flurry of talk page comments, but here is an edit that does show that he should have known the intent was to decline the speedy nomination. That was a few minutes before his third and final attempt to add the tag, so I think at that point he was indeed being unreasonable (counter to my earlier observation). I'm still sticking with my trouts though. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Wikidemon and I also deserve a little trout for the block threat in my edit summary, in light of the earlier circumstances. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment made after "resolved" and after getting up this morning to better expalin myself. My apologies for needing a trout. As I noted when I started this thread I was past exhausted and unable to deal with it or William. That's why I brought it here. I did not merely rollback as vandalism. (Though disruption would have been a better term. RHawthornes edit summary was quite clear.) I placed a note on William's talk page explaining my action. I repeat-- I did explain my action and that RfD was the pace to go. That post was removed and a snarky comment about signing posts was placed on my talk page. No one seems to have noticed that or the ensuing exchange. William had by then retagged again. Since he was not amenable to discussion, I brought it here in hopes that someone could communicate better. Thanks. Dlohcierekim 15:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you did rollback as vandalism, please do not claim otherwise. Also, I tried to engage with you [12] but you left an unsigned comment on my page that explained nothing and gave the impression that you were completely unaware of the situation.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

IP user 98.94.164.237 [edit]

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

This is the latest IP of a banned user whose entire M.O. is to disrupt the Charles Whitman article and specifically material related to Houston McCoy. There's been a report sitting on AIV for a couple of hours without action, and in the meantime they have a large number of edits past their final warning. Any chance someone can enact a block on them? Gavia immer (talk) 09:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, as a side note, there are three older unaddressed reports on AIV as well, though they are probably stale now. Gavia immer (talk) 09:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Gavia immer did not notify me of this posting as noted in the rule. Also, as a contributor, I made a "Good Faith" edit to the Charles Whitman article, sourced it, added a direct quote from the article by the LA Times (a known reliable source), several days ago.
Today it got reverted for vandalism by a user unknown at the time of this writing, it is in the history. After reviewing the the claim of the original revertor, I reviewed WP policies and felt the revertor was mistaken and reverted the article back to include the good faith contribution, with an edit summary. BUZUK and GAVIA IMMER both started reverting the contribution with bad faith claims of vandalism, that is untrue, then accusations of sock-puppets appeared, that is not true, and now they are sourcing Jimbo Wales as a reason to revert over some issue with another contributor in the past, which brings to Gavia Immer's claims here.
I have asked an admin on another board to look at the contribution, determine the verfifability, sources and content of the contribution and nothing has happened except an edit war with falsehoods all over the map. Neither Gavia Immer nor BUZUK have been cordial let alone civil or assummed good faith, after I have asked them to review the contrib and prove it wrong. If anyone should be banned here it is Gavia Immer and Buzuk for tag teaming on an edit war that has no merit or basis for reversion. I will not even go into the false allegations at this time. Thanks for your attention, and please review the contrib as it was intended, in "good faith"! 98.94.164.237 (talk) 09:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I will admit to having overlooked notifying the user. Can someone block them now? Gavia immer (talk) 09:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
article is over 3rr now for all parties involved, Gavia I'd like to side with you, this looks highly disruptive but the IP is using edit summaries and I've seen something similar with Beyond my ken, it got him blocked for edit warring, this board needs more eyes--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I know something about the background on this. Longtime banned user, blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
thanks Gwen, mark as resolved or are Gavia and Bzuk in hot water as well? I'd like to think the IP was the one misbehaving here--Lerdthenerd (talk) 10:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The edits of a banned (not blocked) user are revertable on sight, and doing so is an exception to the 3RR rule. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, only the IP (banned user) ever breached 3rr. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok so resolved then--Lerdthenerd (talk) 10:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I have asked for indefinite semi-protection. We'll see if they agree to it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
They've set it for a month. Maybe that will help fend off the unwashed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Fences and windows - unilateral reversal of NPA block[edit]

The re-block appears to have consensus, albeit with some dissent; the manner of the unblock was much criticised, as well as the unblock itself; but the block expired a while ago. Admins are reminded that the evaluation of personal attacks remains subjective, and swift blocking without prior discussion tends to lead a lot of drama. Accordingly, they should be damn sure it's worth the trouble, versus a stern warning. Rd232 talk 21:42, 3 December 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.

Earlier today I blocked User:Colonel Warden for 24 hours for this edit where he clearly equated a number of editors with Nazis. Some hours later, the above user unilaterally, without any consensus, and without any discussion with me, unblocked that user, and left this message on my talkpage.

Frankly, when a block is performed on a user for (clearly) violating WP:NPA, the last thing anyone should expect is a unilateral unblock (which effectively condones Colonel Warden's conduct) and a message which probably violates WP:NPA in itself. This is not in any way conduct becoming of an administrator, yet this action is "protected" by the wheel-warring issue. I would welcome community input on the next steps to take here, as I do not believe this ludicrous action can be left unchecked. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

  • My desired action in this individual case would depend on how FW responds. If it is with a full apology to Black Kite and recognition of wrongdoing we can leave well alone. My concern is broader: yet another instance of a cowboy unblock which can't be undone because of the wheel-warring rule. That rule only encourages these unblocks, giving veto power to one administrator over the entire community. We need Arbcom to deal with this because it happening all too often.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Perhaps it's time to get rid of the concept of WP:NPA blocks if it's becoming clear they don't ever stick? –MuZemike 00:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    What would you suggest as an alternative deterrent to personal attacks then? Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    I don't throw out NPA blocks very often; this one, however, was clearly beyond the pale, which is why I consider this unblock to be disruption. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • If FW apologizes and reinstates the block, I'd leave it at that. Otherwise, it's off to Arbcom. As for MuZemike's comment, no. I'm not a big fan of NPA blocks, but they are occasionally necessary. Using Nazi analogies on a dispute triggered by AFDs on Jewish topics is in the range of times when they are necessary.—Kww(talk) 00:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict × 2) Generally unhappy; personally I think that comment was pretty borderline in the first place; to be blocked without any warning for a comment like that is excessive. I can't support the way FW unilaterally overturned it with a rather uncivil comment though. I've generally found both admins to be pretty reasonable in the past, so this whole situation is a bit disappointing, imo. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict × n) Ridiculous unblock. Sorry, comparing users to Nazis is unacceptable even if you are participating in an arbitration case, where negative comments are tolerated more than usual. It is certainly even more unacceptable at ANI. T. Canens (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict × 3)I wasn't 100% sure on the block (more a very very strongly worded warning perhaps) but 24 hours didn't seem too much. Unblocking just seems a bad choice, especially given the lack of unblock request. At the end of the day what CW said was not in any universe collegial editing and I think it is fair to hammer into people that there is nothing wrong in being polite when discussing stuff. One of the main problems in the place is how people throw subtle and subversive jibes at each other, any action to improve that is encouraged IMO --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 00:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • (after 4 E/C) Perhaps an RFC on the whole issue of NPA blocks and unblocks. I don't think we are at the level of an arbitration case yet, but as Mkativerata notes, this is becoming a regular pattern. And F&W's unblock was clearly against consensus. Horologium (talk) 00:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • If he said grammar nazi and you blocked him, an unblock would be fine, but this was a link to qan actual nazi act, so I'd say the block should stand. Crisis.EXE 00:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The block was only for 24, and should be reinstated regardless of any "wheel warring" concerns, as the unblocking admin was out of line. I was once blocked 5 days for calling other editors "idiots", and it was a fair block, even if I thought it was true. The "Nazi" garbage I expect from IP's and redlinks, not from established users. We either have civility rules or we don't. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The WW rule is so strict that no admin will restore this block for fear of desysopping. Therein lies the condundrum. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Surely the wheelwarring rule applies to two admins, not to an overturn as a result of a community discussion such as this one? If we, the community, find that the unblock was inappropriate, it should be reinstated. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm actually quite tempted to restore it to poke ArbCom into looking at the issue. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Do it, and if you get desysopped just run for RFA again and you'll have a lot of supporters :) --Mkativerata (gutless) (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
What we need is a disposable admin that we can use for testing. Where the hell is Pastor Theo when you need him?—Kww(talk) 00:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Any admin brave enough to reinstate this block will have unilateral community support. I'll put my hand up to be the tester if need be. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I'll stand right behind you and cheer you on, but you should make sure your record is impeccable. I'm pretty sure you'll have to go through RFA again.—Kww(talk) 00:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
he might need to go through it for the first time, uh, first :) --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 00:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
FYI: I've already been through the RfA process twice (Once as Doggie015 which was this account before I had it renamed) Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 01:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Maybe having a quick chat with someone on the ArbCom would be a prudent thing to do. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
WP:WW (emphasis added) "[...] there is very rarely any valid reason for the original or another administrator to reinstate the same or similar action again without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision. [...] once an administrative action has been reverted, it should not be restored without consensus." If you can get consensus here for a reblock, then you can do so. In the meantime it would be highly inadvisable to reblock. SpitfireTally-ho! 00:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) I think we have a fairly reasonable consensus here already; several users have already stated that would support an admin willing to reblock. I'm somewhat neutral on the matter though, since as I said, I don't really support either the block or the unblock. A stern warning should be sufficient, it hardly seems likely they're going to be making any more nazi references, and blocks are punitive, after all. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Given that WP:WHEEL says "Seek constructive discussion, follow dispute resolution processes as with any other conduct matter. For example: move the issue to WP:ANI and wait for input", I have restored the block to its original length (i.e. 14:26 UTC). Black Kite (t) (c) 00:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Hasty block, bad unblock, good reblock is all I have to say to that. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, I committed to this so... support on a number of principles. Now, who has popcorn? --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 01:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I think 24 hours for that appalling analogy is a bit lenient. He compared the routine maintenance of an online encyclopedia to the secret abduction and murder of political opponents of the Nazis, and doing so ona an ANI thread concerning to Judaism-related articles. It boggles the mind that Colonel Warden would think that's appropriate, and even more amazing that anyone would actually defend him on it to the point of undoing the actions of another admin. Now, Fences&Windows does not have a history of poor judgment as far as I'm aware so I'm prepared to regard this as merely a gigantic embarrassing howler.
Not so for the Colonel. This disruptive user is constantly ascribing shady motives to people he disagrees with. He seems to have a fundamental inability to accept that people may hold good-faith opinions that differ from his own, preferring instead to call them petty and spiteful or, as in this case, murderous fascists. This is obviously problematic, and I see nothing wrong in blocking him to send the message that egregious personal attacks are not acceptable. Particularly since CW has a recent history of being disruptive in other ways (see recent ANI threads about maintenance tag removal and dishonest edit summaries). Reyk YO! 01:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
There is never ever any excuse for calling other editors Nazis. If he does it again, the next block should be a week. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Strongly endorse Fences' unblock which is fully supported by policy. Recently an admin[13] to change policy to remove the clause that implies the unblocker doesn't always have to discuss with the blocking admin. This was roundly rejected. The 2nd mover advantage is what protects regular editors from excessively hard-line admins. Unblocking can be done unilaterally, its only wheel warring if an overturned block is restored without consensus I bold this as the comments above show that both admins and regular editors have misunderstood this key point of policy. Fences' comment on Blackkites talk didnt AGF, but if was no worse a failure than that of the several editors who assumed the Colonel was calling other editors Nazis when in fact he was just a little clumsy in trying to imply those attacking Epee are being a little overbearing. Thank God for quality independently minded admins like Fences bold enough to stand up for what is right. Hopefully another brave admin will follow his example and unblock Epee, again per policy it will only be wheel warring if the block is undone. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Sorry, but this attempt at wiki-revisionism didn't hold much water last night and has fared no better today. Warden called out a group of editors that regularly opposed him in XfDs, comparing their actions to those of Nazis, specifically the kidnapping and forced disappearance (i.e. murder) of opponents. If you still persist in defending that kind of garbage then you are in the same boat as he as far as I am concerned, and your endorsement counts for jack squat. Tarc (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Reblock Proposal[edit]

The unblock by User:Fences and windows was inappropriate, and the 24-hour block on User:Colonel Warden should be reinstated for the amount of time necessary to ensure that the total "time served" equals at least 24 hours. Please indicate if you support or oppose this proposal below, so that consensus can be determined.

  • Support as proposer. SnottyWong gossip 00:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support the resetting to the original expiration time, as that is what Black Kite has done.—Kww(talk) 01:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support -I agree. Reyk YO! 01:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The analogy invoking "Nacht und Nebel" was in poor taste, however it was not a personal attack on anyone. The unblock was 100% correct, as the editor was blocked on flawed grounds. Moreover, by blocking, you polarize the discussion about the inappropriateness of invoking Nazi-analogues in these sorts of discussions, so you don't get the point accross to the editor that these sorts of analogies should be avoided. Count Iblis (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, per Kww and my comment above. T. Canens (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Super speedy Comment: Hey, waaait a minute!!! Colonel Warden is already blocked! :-D<L.O.L.) [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 01:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Moot point. Blocks are not punitive; there's no need to extend the block extra so the total time served = 24 hours. The block should expire when it was originally supposed to. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict × accedentally got deleted) And Black Kite has already reblocked Colonel Warden, and the reblocking expires at when the original block would have expired. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 01:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Is this subthread doing anything other than giving unnecessary retroactive endorsement to an action that had the endorsement of the community at the time it was made?--Mkativerata (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I would dispute the "unnecessary" part, but meh. It does help to crystalize consensus, so to speak. T. Canens (talk) 01:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
      • It does guard the re-blocking admin from being sanctioned for wheel-warring, so while it might seem like a lot of retroactive dicking around it serves a constructive purpose. Reyk YO! 01:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Ok, although I would think Arbcom would only look at contemporaneous consensus, in case it makes any difference, I'll bold a support here.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • support - only two edits from Fences today, one to lift the bock without any discussion at all and the other to be quite rude to Black kite. Off2riorob (talk) 01:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Using a Nazi-analogy in a Jewish AfD discussion like that is in poor taste. Ishdarian 01:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Do not forget that Colonel Warden has already been reblocked by Black Kite. Thus, the only real purpose of this proposal here is to extend the length of the block, so that the "time served" equals 24 hours (which is likely really just a pile of junk, as CW has not even edited between when Fences and windows unblocked him, and when Black Kite reblocked him). And do not forget what the blocking policy says (as quoted): "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia; they are not intended as a punishment..." [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 01:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Laying a block on someone for incivility can indeed prevent damage if the editor learns from it and improves his behavior in the future. Removing the block early damages wikipedia by undercutting its own rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support reinstatement of the block to its original expiration point (not extended further), as Black Kite has done. An admin unblocking early should ALWAYS consult the blocking admin, and labeling a short block as "ridiculous" amounts to a personal attack that ethically nullifies the unblocker's right to unblock. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I support the reblock, my comments are already on CW's talk. I always hope for more consensus as to the need for civility on this website. I also think that some first reverts of good faith admin actions can be taken as wheel warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree wholly with Count Iblis' comments on this one. Colonel Warden was making a forceful point about the tactics being contemplated, not directly calling names - NPA is not meant to be a no-warning policy for blocking anybody whose rhetoric an admin finds offensive - it's meant to be used for people who deliberately make specific and personal attacks on other editors. Grow a thicker skin and engage with the arguments being made, already. RayTalk 02:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Tactics of murder? Clumsy, that, to put it mildly. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
How is calling people Nazis part of an "argument"? It's not. It's an attempt to intimidate. It's not good, and shouldn't be tolerated. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I would not make that assumption unless that editor has a track record of anti-semitic comments. Otherwise we can WP:AGF and assume that the comment was a misplaced and distasteful analogy that was not meant to be a personal attack. Count Iblis (talk) 04:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • To avoid possible future dispute I support the reblock. I don't see the need for time served = 24 hours given that CW never edited Nil Einne (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, assuming you mean total time served would be 24 rather than resetting the clock. He made one edit, to his talk page, which is normal when one is blocked anyway. So he's effectively been on a block the whole time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I guess that since this is basically a "consensus review" of Black Kite having already reblocked Colonel Warden, I will leave my part in here, that I Support Black Kite having already reblocked C.W. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 02:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse original block and reblock. Fences&Windows action...unblocking someone who didn't even post an unblock request, not consulting with the blocking admin first, and posting a very disparaging "fuck off"-style message to said admin to boot is just beyond the pale. Consider an ArbCom filing to defrock this joker. Tarc (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
unnecessarily uncivil side-discussion
  • What a wankfest. Doesn't anyone edit articles anymore? Need we spooge over this bullshit all the time? Warden's comment was poor (though he didn't call anyone a nazi, he equated certain acts to nazi tactics, which is a complete loss of his argument under Godwin's law anyway) and should have been chastised and then we could have moved on. The block was hasty and uncalled for, and happened because some editors are upset with CW lately. The unblock was almost inevitable, an almost newtownian reaction to BK's action. And Tarc was the editor who called for CW's head, and he's frequently uncivil as well. I'd like to spend my time sourcing uBLPs today, and I've already spent too much time on this (and CW needs no help defending himself), so this is my last comment on this stuff. Let's grow up everyone.--Milowenttalkblp-r 02:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    My god, will you just stick a goddamn cork in it already? There's more to this place than creating stubs for every 19th century cricket player or bloc-voting to keep an article for every transformer that ever existed y'know, one thing being ensuring that people that make repugnant Nazi allusions are shown the door. If you don't like it, tough. Take AN/I off your watchlist and move on. Tarc (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
What the person directly above me said . Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 03:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
last 2 cents, I promise: Tarc, you continual slander of me is ridiculous. "Goddamn cork" "arshole" etc etc etc I'm not going to waste my time looking. I don't give a rat's ass about transformers, I don't like Nazi allusions or hasty blocks, and I don't like how much time people spend on all this drama crap. And in that case, you're right that I should put in cork in it.--Milowenttalkblp-r 03:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
It's not like you didn't earn every bit of your criticism or something! Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 03:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah... it seems rather ironic for this kind of incivility to take place in a thread concerning a block for incivility, so I'm collapsing this tangential discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Good idea. I was going to comment that things seem to be getting a bit catty. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose – I feel nauseous reading these appalling assaults on Colonel Warden and Epeefleche. I suppose feeling that way is blockable as well. I support the blocking of all editors who have contributed negatively to this fatuous dramafest more than twice, unless they can show that they have contributed in a really useful way to Wikipedia. I also support the desoping of administrators who have negatively fanned the flames of this destructive twaddle, particularly those who contribute little valuable content to Wikipedia but devote their energy trying to destroy those who do. We have wise administrators here. Why is it made so difficult for them to step forward and intervene? Unwise administrators damage Wikipedia far more than armies of vandals. We are long overdue for change. There should be a special group of administrators who have earned the respect of content editors, and only those administrators should have the power to block well established content editors. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    Umm no. Access Denied 03:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    Meaning what? That only administrators who do not have the respect of content editors should have the power to block them? --Epipelagic (talk) 03:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    We seem to have a few people around here who unfortunately can make such comments with impunity (you all know to whom I refer); however, that doesn't make it right. Let's not go there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    Not to be a civility policeman or anything, but just a note that Epiplagic has a pretty long history of personal attacks judging from their talk page. Access Denied 03:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    All editors are equal. That includes admins. Access Denied 04:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    Editors who contribute little useful content to Wikipedia are not editors. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    Okay, then maybe me and all the other vandal fighters should retire for a month. That'll definetiley change your opinion. Access Denied 04:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    What is "useful" content here is entirely subjective, and hardly an argument for Epipelagic's above view. What constitutes an "editor" here is also subjective, apparently. The best editors can both contribute "useful" content and respect civility and enforce the rules. No one is "holier than thou" here, really. With all due respect to Orwell... Doc talk 05:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    Admins are more equal than others. Count Iblis (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    I had to read that fucking book YEARS ago for class... I still can't see what was so goddamn great about it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: He made the nazi comparison. I don't care how often people get away with it or how many excuses they make... Comparing any part of someone to a nazi is always a personal attack. I can't believe people are defending it as a fair comment. The comparison always harms the quality of discussion and makes for a less civil environment. Moreover... there has to be some civil process to how admins dispute each other... or else all of Wikipedia is just a battleground, with the admins who agree with me versus the admins who agree with you. We have to draw the line somewhere. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support reblock. Content editors who behave in a manner which is likely to cause other content editors to leave the project should be remind to not behave in that manner. I want people who work on articles to not act in a manner that causes their collegues to wish to leave. --Jayron32 05:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Comparing good intentioned people to Nazis is never okay. Unblocking, leaving a rude message, and then disappearing isn't that great either. AniMate 05:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose just which particular editor or editors are being attacked? NPA is about personal attacks, and to say that the general trend of a discussion is reminiscent of totalitarian methods without naming or indicating anyone in particular is a comment on the overall discussion, not on any of the editors. If one wishes to show that one is proceeding in a reasonable way, one does not do it by trying to block the people who say that you are not. (It was of course a little foolish to make that particular link, because it could have been said just as well without it.) What I see here is another example of rushing to judgment, and I think F&W did right. DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Count Iblis, Ray A Yang & DGG. An entirely unreasonable block. Support F & W's unblock. Who did Colonel Warden compare to a Nazi? How? What policy did he violate? Not WP:NPA, and the block was not made according to the suggestions there, but as an unwarned bolt from the blue. Following the discussion from CW's talk page, I was surprised and amused by the drama, and as F & W said, "posturing" over CW's remark. Fundamental policy is that anyone should be free to edit, even say things which do not amount to the sum of human wisdom, horrors, and only blocked if there is clear and definite violation and prospect of continuing, none of which applies here.John Z (talk) 07:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Hence why I said above about the possibility of getting rid of the WP:NPA policy as it cannot possibly be enforced consistently. –MuZemike 07:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Also, let me propose this question, if I may without getting blasted on: would NPA apply only to individual editors or also to entire groups of editors? –MuZemike 07:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Whether you're addressing a group, or a specific individual, it's still personal. Personal doesn't mean one. I can't say "The admins in this thread are a bunch of idiots" and then claim well there are several admins here, so it isn't personal. If it's directed at an identifiable individual or group of individuals, even if a little coyness is involved, it's a personal attack. NPA is essential to wikipedia, otherwise you have threads degenerating to nothing but name-calling and vulgarity and no one wants to participate. The problem isn't with NPA, the problem is with people who don't have the spine to uphold the policies of this site and actually do something about it when those policies are assailed by biased parties.--Crossmr (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I would be more concerned about those rushing to be apologists for CW who don't appear to have actually read either his original comment or NPA. He clearly identified a group of editors (i.e. those who were voting to delete those articles at AfD) and equated them with Nazism. I cannot see any clearer violation of NPA; after all this is a seasoned, intelligent editor who must have known that his analogy would be offensive - and to do it on a thread about Judaism-related articles? It is telling that most of those rushing to tell us that those sort of comments are OK are those that share CW's wikipolitical position; personally, I would prefer it if people, as Crossmr says above, had the willingness to condemn their wiki-friends when they step out of line. Clearly we are expecting too much. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
(ec)I disagree with MuZemike (and it goes without saying, everything Black Kite says above) and think NPA is a good idea and enforceable, if it is just kept to, uhh, actual personal attacks. How about fighting fire with fire, or here, vague coyness with vague coy statements that bringing up them Nazis can be unwelcome? The true problem is with rushing to judgment, with a widespread attitude of blocking as the first resort, of focussing on BAD WORDS & FORBIDDEN SUBJECTS rather than logic & the spirit of our policies, which only gives credence to complaints.
To the supporters of this silly block: Should we have a line in WP:NOT that says "Wikipedia is NOT a tyranny run by totalitarian administrators. Anyone who says it is will be blocked."? ;)John Z (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)#
It's not rocket science though, is it? There's a simple dichotomy here; we shouldn't be blocking people for simple playground insults unless they're really persistent and disruptive, but equally there's a bright line - if you're racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, or you start equating people with paedophiles or Nazis, then expect only one result. There is no place in a collegial editing environment for such behaviour - full stop. As I said earlier, I only had one doubt about this block and that was whether it was too lenient. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
So basically, you're saying that NPA should not apply to groups of editors, correct? Moreover, why have NPA when people can apparently run around it to easily? I also note that this is not the first time NPA has been directly challenged, either. –MuZemike 18:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The original block was correct. Comparing the editing of a website to Nazi mass murders is utterly inacceptable and should not be tolerated as a matter of basic decency. The unilateral unblock was an abuse of administrator tools and enabled the blocked editor to continue disrupting Wikipedia in that manner. I see no value in discussing whether the blocked editor should be reblocked for a few additional hours, as blocks are not punitive. But I would strongly support sanctions against the unblocking administrator.  Sandstein  08:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse original block and re-block. The comment was beyond the pale, and the same goes for the unblock. We have an unfortunate culture where the tolerance for abusive behaviour at ANI (and RfA for that matter) is much higher than elsewhere, but there are limits that should not be crossed. MLauba (Talk) 09:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support block and re-block Invoking Godwin's law is a blatant violation of WP:CIVIL and should not be tolerated. --Confession0791 talk 10:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment The block was impetuous and extreme. BC should have pointed out the inappropriateness of the comment and requested its withdrawal. You are much too ready to block editors, BC, and don't deserve the tools. F&W's unblock, without approaching BC, was reckless and counter-productive. By unblocking without running it by BC, you deprived your legitemate action of its appearance of legitimacy. BC's re-blocking of the editor before this discussion is resolved was premature and wheel-warring. You don't deserve the tools, BC. Anthony (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Feel free to take me to ArbCom, then. I actually hope someone does, so we can get a definite decision on this ludicrous issue of unblocking without discussion. Oh, and it's BK, not BC. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Just resign. Anthony (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse original block and reblock. CW's comment was completely unacceptable, especially given the context. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support a military-strength spanking for the Colonel. He is fighting in the wrong or possibly non-existent inforwar. Hopefully, I'm not going to get blocked as advocating violence or something. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • A request to retract with apology could have achieved resolution in 2 minutes. This is just testosterone-driven, self-righteous, tool-flourishing battle drama. Anthony (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose this truly astonishingly bad block, which must cast serious doubt on the probity of every other administrator supporting it. There was no personal attack, not even a comment directed to any other editors. In fact CW was simply deprecating a Nazi tactic, as I'm sure we all do, not suggesting that anyone was a Nazi. Malleus Fatuorum 19:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Now that's an oddity. Malleus, given that you're an erudite and intelligent person, which part of "The alternative conception - that we should quietly do away with substantial topics - seems neither proper nor efficient and brings to mind disreputable tactics" is not an equating of editors !voting delete on those AfD with Nazism? Don't get me wrong, I'm quite happy to say "yep, I'm wrong" but I simply don't see how I am. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
      • A straightforward analysis of that sentence shows its subject to be "the alternative conception", not any editor or group of editors, therefore it can't possibly be a personal attack. Given the hysteria that always seems to accompany any Nazi reference it was perhaps an unwise choice of analogy, but it breached no policy. Malleus Fatuorum 19:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sigh. No policy was breached, no editor or group of editors was attacked, no reason to block was present. This is a terrible block and F&W deserves to be commended for overturning it. And, yes, this needs to be taken to ArbCom. ----Divebomb is not British 19:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, I wish someone would. Honestly, if even wheel-warring can't get you taken to ArbCom these days, what do we have to do? Set fire to Jimbo? Oh, and you're completely wrong, but you knew I'd say that. Probably because you're not British. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Moving to archive Without commenting on the validity of the initial block and on unblock, I do not believe the editor should have been re-blocked simply because it was not his fault he got unblocked. If administrators have disagreement between themselves other should not be responsible for those. IMO re-block for 13 hours 41 minutes was made to make a point only. Fine. All the points were made. The block time has ended a few hours ago. Should we stop loosing time and archive the thread? --Mbz1 (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC) |}

Proposal to unmerge these threads[edit]

While I agree with the heading commentary (permalink) that those AfDs were drama supreme, ANI is usually about user conduct. I don't see a direct relationship between the WP:canvassing issue with Epeefleche and the Godwin/civility issue with Colonel Warden. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Yes, rather bizarre merge that - the other thread is not about Colonel Warden directly, it's about Fences and Windows unilateral unblock. As such, I have unmerged. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:24, 3 December 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.

Ckatz[edit]

I have been making very contributal edits recently to Leslie Nielsen and Peter Graves. But for at least the past month User:Ckatz has been monitoring my edits and simply reverting them. I asked him why he is doing so, and he simply deletes my message and claims the incident "ridiculous". It has become very frustrating and i'd like it to stop. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:02 2 December 2010 (UTC)

A few things:
  1. Have you notified Ckatz of this?
  2. Have you talked to Ckatz about this?
  3. You need to provide WP:DIFFs to illustrate your point. Basket of Puppies 18:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I have and he deletes my messages and tells me to go away or get lost. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:08 2 December 2010 (UTC)
[14], [15], [16].

There's more, but they're too deep into my contribs list

So: two solid removals, with sound reasoning clearly explained (i.e., "No-one is disputing the information; that does not change the reality that it is a trivial detail and non-encyclopaedic"); and one case where you have provided unsourced speculation apparently based on your own guesswork, and Ckatz removed it while explaining why. Good work, Ckatz. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Yea, I'm not seeing anything wrong in how Ckatz has reverted these additions. If you feel they need to be added, explain further on the respective talk pages, but this is no ways an administration problem. --MASEM (t) 18:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I can't, he'll just remove it. I try to remain civil and work it out, but when he refuses to acknowledge the situation and CONTINUES reverting my edits, it just gets so fucking difficult. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:32 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Rusted, that is nonsense. I've already replied to your claims on your talk page. If you have genuine issues, please, dig them up so that people can fairly judge the matter. I have no problem with you (or anyone) expressing concerns if they feel something is not right. However, making unsupported accusations simply because you don't like the fact that two of your edit was rejected is just not cool. Neither is reverting a user talk page five times after I have already responded to your initial post, and after another admin has already told you to stop. You'd probably get more sympathy if your claims were reasonable, but instead you're now claiming I am "reverting a majority of [your] edits and given no probable cause". My math may be shaky, but I can't in any way work the numbers to make sense of that claim. --Ckatzchatspy 18:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
My memory make be off, but two months ago I asked the same questions and you took them off and told me i was being ridiculous. Your actions are annoying, frustrating and above all, CHILDISH. If you wanted to acknowledge the problem, why do you continue removing my posts on your talk page? Solve that riddle. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:39 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Both of you, stop the childish edit warring on CKatz's talk page. Rusted Auto Parts, users are allowed to remove talk page messages from their own talk page if they like; in fact, that means they have probably read and acknowledged the message. Do not make me have to issue blocks for disruption here. –MuZemike 18:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

He;s done it again, removing my question of why he's doing this. [17], simply refuses to even REPLY. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:35 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Rusted, the better solution instead of trying to get Ckatz to explain himself, is to get consensus to have your additions added to the respective talk pages of the articles in question (eg Talk:Peter Graves). Maybe consensus sees your additions differently from Ckatz, and they will add that to the page. They might not, either. But that will come to a more agreable solution than trying to convince Ckatz alone to allow your additions. --MASEM (t) 18:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Rusted, it is my right to remove the initial post, especially given that I had already responded on your talk page. On the other had, you do not have the right to repeatedly and disruptively repost it, especially after an uninvolved party has told you to stop. I'll not even get into your most recent post, in which you acknowledge you were purposefully reposting simply to annoy me. --Ckatzchatspy 18:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Only because i want to know why you are coming after me, saying I'M the person who's in the wrong. You HAVE been Hounding me and i even noticed it two months ago. I only want to know why you delete the posts i made on your talk pages SECONDS after i posted it. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:46 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Masem, thank you for your input. However, it is important to clarify that Rusted has not laid out the situation correctly. For example, in regard to Peter Graves and Leslie Nielsen, please note that his text was initially removed by Crohnie with the edit summary "Removed as trivial and not important for this article + it's unsourced. please do not return this to the article per WP:Trivia". Rusted restored the text, and when I removed it he then initiated the notices that led to this proceeding. --Ckatzchatspy 18:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
That's what I thought I saw, and still gives him no reason to be incessantly attacking your talk page. If this is about the content Rusted wants added, WP:BRD and the specific articles' talk pages are the place to go, not to your page. --MASEM (t) 18:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a case of WP:BOOMERANG to me - Amog | Talkcontribs 19:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Masem, in particular, and Amog. Rusted AutoParts, I advise you to accept that (a) people may remove messages from their talk page and that you should not edit-war to restore them, and (b) people can in good faith disagree about whether your additions were useful (in my opinion, they were very much not), and WP:DR tells you how to deal with such disagreements. You should begin by using the article talk page.  Sandstein  21:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
While it may be an interesting coincidence that 3 of the octogenarian cast members of Airplane! have died in 2010, putting it in the article amounts to "original synthesis", i.e. it implies there's something special about it. If there were a reliable source that remarked on the unusual nature of this coincidence (if it is, in fact, unusual) then it might be worth posting. Otherwise, it's just trivia more appropriate perhaps to IMDB than to wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong here in Ckatz's actions. Unsourced content and trivia don't belong here, and once reverted, it should be taken to the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. I see that a discussion took place on Talk:Peter Graves where the removal was explained, but not at Talk:Leslie Nielsen. If you keep adding trivia and unsourced content, other editors removing it is absolutely the right thing to do. Given that Rusted's first communication with Ckatz on his talk page was an accusation of hounding, I don't blame Ckatz in the least for removing such comments.--Michig (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
"Unsourced" is a bit off the mark, as there is no dispute that Peter Graves, Barbara Billingsley and Leslie Nielsen, all of whom appeared in Airplane!, have all died this past year. The issue is notability. That's a content matter, of course. The OP's somewhat over-reaction to this is the ANI-related problem. He's a relative newbie, so hopefully he'll understand the point better as time goes on. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I meant dubious unsourced content - see diff 31 above.--Michig (talk) 06:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that's it. Can you re-post the same diff here? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Ckatz, i apologize for quickly assuming you were intentionally reverting my edis. Realizing now that providing sources is required for additions such as to Megamind. I only got angered because i noticed that you were the one reverting. I'm sorry for persistently trying to make you acknowledge it and hope we might be able to help one another out in case of an edit war that breaks out. With regards, Rusted AutoParts (talk) 10:41 3 December 2010 (UTC)
This was the diff I was referring to - whether or not this is dubious is a matter for the individual, but removal by Ckatz was reasonable in my view. Looks like there's no issue now, in any case.--Michig (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
That stuff is definitely OR. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Query about sanction per language[edit]

Is there an inherent difference between "underhandedly", "disingenuously", and "purposely deceitful"? Which would you say is harsher and crosses ad hominem lines?
I ask in relevance to an ongoing issue.
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 22:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If the words used are (a) true, and (b) relevant, then none would necessarily be 'ad hominem' I'd have thought - this would depend on the context. I'd say that in increasing harshness I'd rank them "disingenuously", "underhandedly" and "purposely deceitful". AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your input.

Further input from participants of this forum would be most appreciated as this involves an ongoing issue. JaakobouChalk Talk 22:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur with AndyTheGrump, and would rank them in the same order of harshness. ← George talk 23:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, all three are problematic, for the simple reason that they suggest that the one editor can read the heart and mind of the other. That's why it's risky to make personal attacks. Behavior, in contrast, is easy to demonstrate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing edit warring and verbal abuse from IP user[edit]

Resolved

IP user 24.129.175.63 has recently been edit warring on the articles The Howling and The Howling III: Echoes. Without going into detail about the subject disagreement itself, 24.129.175.63 has been reverting edits by several other users for quite some months now, but in recent weeks he has become extremely offensive towards the other users calling them "fucking morons" [18], "bloody idiots" [19], and "grade school drop outs" [20] in his edit summaries. When challenged by one editor (User:Half price), 24.129.175.63 called him a "motherfucking idiot" on his talk page [21]. Another IP user attempted to discuss the matter with 24.129.175.63 and left him a message on his talk page earlier this week which asked him to stop his edit warring and engage in discussion on the article talk pages as well as warning him about WP:NPA, but 24.129.175.63 ignored this and has simply continued edit warring and called the user a "fucking idiot" in his edit summary [22]. Given the increasing hostility from this user and the fact that that there are other complaints about his behaviour on his talk page, I am requesting that this IP address be blocked indefinitely. GoldCoaster (talk) 07:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep... Came across this user while monitoring recent changes and found his edit summary very rude and inappropriate. I warned him accordingly, but I definitely support a block. «CharlieEchoTango» 07:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
IPs are not blocked indefinitely. He's received some warnings, but has not edited since. Should he recommence attacking others, please inform me or another admin with reference to this thread, and an appropriate block will be imposed.  Sandstein  08:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
User 24.129.175.63 has now resumed edit warring [23] on one of these articles after repeated warnings and after this report was made. Surely a block is now needed. GoldCoaster (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Blocked for 24h.  Sandstein  21:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

already reported this one[edit]