Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive670

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Homeopathy[edit]

George1918 (talk · contribs) created a badly formulated poll at Talk:Homeopathy#Is Homeopathy a reliable source for scientific or evidence based medical conclusions? (apparently under the impression that being a "reliable source" is an intrinsic property of a source unrelated to the claim in question), and PPdd (talk · contribs) spammed notifications to a dozen more or less related talk pages. (See Talk:Homeopathy#Objection to the nonsense poll above for a more detailed explanation of the situation from my POV.) I propose that an admin warns both editors to be more careful in the future and, unless PPdd does so themselves, removes most of the spammed notifications as inappropriate. Hans Adler 10:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC) (updated 10:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC))

Update: Ppdd created the poll, misrepresenting earlier comments by two other editors by taking them out of their original context and putting them into a completely new one. The poll was not George1918's fault at all, but was created in a way that implied that it was. I have written more about this below. I apologise for my initial confusion. Hans Adler 23:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I created the poll as a subsection from George1918's question by isolating the unresolved part of the question as a subsection header. PPdd (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

As a general note, the atmosphere at the article was quiet and almost harmonious for a long time, but recently it looks as if there might be a return to the old battleground behaviour that led to several Arbcom cases. Symptoms include the appearance of a new sceptic editor who tried to rewrite the historically contentious lead completely without knowing or researching the first thing about the topic, and the sudden appearance of a likely sock of a banned pro-homeopathy editor.

I believe the article is still under discretionary sanctions. While certainly no action should be taken against any individual editor (except for the possible sock; I have filed an SPI), it may soon become necessary to give formal warnings to new editors or to editors whose formal warning about the article sanctions happened long ago. It would be great if a few uninvolved admins could keep an eye on the talk page. Hans Adler 10:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC) (updated 10:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC))

I am one of the editors who "spammed" to relevant Wikiprojects related to using the journal Homeopathy as RS for a physics article in it showing a miraculous "matter genrating machine" at the nanolevel.
Before notifying relevant Wikiprojects (and I presume by the same reasoning, article talk pages related to the RS debate) I was explicitly told by an admin that it was appropriate to do so here[1] --
"How do I "inform a Wikiproject"? I would have liked to do so in several articles, but is this not WP:Canvassing? HkFnsNGA (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi! No it isn't, quite the opposite: wikiprojects exist exactly to provide help from editors who specialize or anyway care about a subject. You just go to the desired wikiproject talk page, open a new section and ask with a neutral message for help. --Cyclopiatalk 23:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)]".
After the notifications I was again told by an admin it was "reasonable" here --[2],
"I put a notice to please vote at a Wikiproject to which the article belonged. I was told that this is the appropriate place to request votes, though I was told to be neutral and should not express a POV as to how to vote. Did I make a mistake? PPdd (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
It is reasonable to post a link to the WikiProject; it is also good form to post a note at the discussion saying that you did so. (There might be an expectation that members of the project would tend vote in a block (true or not), and it's good to be completely open about how a discussion has been publicised.) LadyofShalott 02:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)"
PPdd (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
PPdd, FYI, although Cyclopia is a very experienced long-time editor here ("reviewer" status) I don't believe they are an admin. You need to add a tool to your monobook that immediately provides lots of information when you let your mouse pointer hover over a link. In this case it immediately tells me this about Cyclopia: "reviewer, 6735 edits since: 2004-07-25". It even shows me the top of their userpage! -- Brangifer (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
"It is reasonable to post a link to the WikiProject". It is unreasonable, however, to post a link to 3 WikiProjects (Rational skepticism, Medicine, Alternative medicine), 3 policy/guideline talk pages (RS, MEDRS, FRINGE) and 5 articles (List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, evidence-based medicine, scientific method, junk science, pathological science). Hans Adler 15:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this ANI is premature. HkFnsNGA is a good-faith editor with some common newbie issues that need ironing out (and it seems they're improving in fact), and George1918 is quite a classical case of tendentious newbie or semi-newbie (I cannot and will not comment on possible sockpuppeting issues). Nothing odd I'd say for such an article, and I wouldn't raise an AN/I for what looks like the natural cycle of such articles on WP. However the "poll" itself was actually helpful (or at least not harmful) in settling the specific matter. I fully agree with Hans Adler that sources are not reliable or not in a vacuum but obviously by context -yet the context indicated in the poll (and most importantly in the poll opinions) was quite circumscribed. I also don't think that notifying wikiprojects per se is akin to spamming -they exist for these very reasons. I personally would have notified the RS/N (don't know if it has been actually done) and perhaps moved the discussion there, but the more eyes on a controversial issue, the better. --Cyclopiatalk 14:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

@ Cyclopia: FYI, HkFnsNGA (now PPdd) isn't a newbie. Their present status: "3824 edits since: 2009-11-18" . -- Brangifer (talk) 07:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
If I had been aware that PPdd is HkFnsNGA renamed I might have acted somewhat differently, but I was not aware and I don't think that's my fault. It appeared to me that one problematic new user had temporarily disappeared and another problematic user appeared. Even with the new knowledge I don't think this report is premature. The homeopathy article had an extremely bad atmosphere in the past, and excessive spamming of canvasing messages creates a real chance that we will return to that situation soon. The situation should be monitored by uninvolved admins.
This [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] was not just "notifying wikiprojects", it was far out of proportion. Especially for an attempt to canvas answers to a question that didn't need asking in the first place because the answer is so obvious. Hans Adler 15:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that PPdd is HkFnsNGA renamed as well. There are a few talk page notices which make little sense but I see nothing serious happening from that. And again: it may seem so obvious to us but this doesn't mean it is obvious to everyone. Too many times I've seen (in WP and in real life) the "obvious" challenged by good faith people. It is good to have a consensus even on the obvious to better rebuke who wants to challenge the obvious due to a POV. --Cyclopiatalk 16:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Boy does that ever apply here! George1918 is such an editor....a very persistent POV pusher who fails to understand many things about how science works. Of course that's generally to be expected from those who are true believers in homeopathy. Face-wink.svg -- Brangifer (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I can understand the concerns Hans Adler must have felt when seeing what he thought was a newbie engaged in so much activity! Fortunately it was an experienced editor and the poll was about a specific issue. (In fact, when I discovered that someone didn't follow the link and tried !voting "on the spot", I followed PPdd's trail and made a clearer notice of where to !vote.)

We need to differentiate between proper "notifications" and improper "canvassing":

  • Notifications of polls, RfCs, etc. are normally sent to numerous talk pages where it would be logical to expect interested editors to appreciate such a notification. It is important in doing so to include the talk pages of both believers and skeptics, otherwise it's de facto "canvassing".
  • Canvassing would be sending such notifications in a manner to get a desired result, either by selective notification or by asking for a certain result. That's very wrong.

In this case I don't see a violation of the prohibition against canvassing. (Whether the question is really unnecessary to ask because the answer is obvious is another matter.) In this case it related to a specific situation and was to demonstrate to a pushy and persistent newbie what the consensus of editors believed on the matter, and it seems to have served the purpose. Some of the !votes were excellent answers that showed how even a normally questionable source should be treated (decision about use as a RS made on a case-by-case basis). Even an often questionable source can be used in some circumstances. It's not a black/white situation.

I'm not saying that everything about this matter was necessarily worded perfectly, or done completely wisely, but in principle I don't see any gross violation. At worst it was a good faith attempt to settle an issue that was very pressing and causing quite a bit of disruption, especially because it was coming from a newbie of questionable origins. Any advice from others who see this from other angles would no doubt be welcomed by all concerned parties here. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I endorse BullRangifer above statement completely. --Cyclopiatalk 17:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, I don't.
  • PPdd is not an "experienced editor". PPdd is an over-enthusiastic newbie who is about to cause serious damage at one of our historically most contentious articles, possibly steering it straight to Arbcom.
  • The poll was not about a specific issue, or at least not a sensible one. It's hard to tell because it was so unclear. The only thing that was clear was that "no" was the only sensible answer, and that this could later be overinterpreted. Not too long ago I have seen something eerily similar, and it caused a great deal of disruption that was hard to deal with. As a result, I no longer have any tolerance for such bullshit. (As a general comment, I have hardly ever seen a single editor or two create a poll and advertise it widely without waiting for input and approval of the poll's formulation from their fellow editors. I don't know if this is regulated in any way, but acting like this is a sure path to chaos.)
  • Notifications are not normally "sent to numerous talk pages where it would be logical to expect interested editors to appreciate such a notification". At least not for values of "numerous" that lie around 10. Two or perhaps three talk pages are reasonable. Eleven are not.
  • The choice of talk pages does not appear completely unbiased, either, although I consider this a very minor point.
That said, I agree it wasn't a "gross violation". But it was behaviour that needs to stop. Hans Adler 20:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
@ Hans, FYI, HkFnsNGA (now PPdd) isn't a newbie. Their present status: "3824 edits since: 2009-11-18" . -- Brangifer (talk) 07:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I am still puzzled as to what to do regarding notification to projects and talk pages to end limitless questions about RS and alternative medicine and pseudoscience journals. The RS related talk pages are directly on point for notification, so are the three projects. I was told that this might create a "block voting" situation, so I thought (thinking there would be a swarm of reacting pseudoscience POV pushers voting) it best to post at talk on relevant article talk pages. (I thought junk science was synonymous with pseudoscience in the court and politics. I was once malisciously prosecuted using what a major national president of a scientific body described in his a keynote address at his body's annual national meeting as, alternatively, "junk physical science" then "pseudoscience".) If the situation arises again, I do not know what is proper. Selectively notifying relevant talk pages is a kind of canvassing. PPdd (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

How was the discussion related to improvements of any of the following articles? list of topics characterised as pseudoscience, evidence-based medicine, scientific method, junk science, pathological science. I think I can be forgiven if I got the impression that you selected these articles because you expected to find a certain type of editor there, rather than because of any relevance of the question to the articles themselves. You could just as well have notified editors at articles such as Catholicism, Discovery Institute and parapsychology. That would not have been OK, either. Hans Adler 21:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I expected editors at talk at list of topics characterised as pseudoscience, evidence-based medicine, scientific method, junk science, and pathological science to be interested in what or what is not RS for pseudoscience, when there is a claim to use a scientific method in the article in question (as was made in the electron miscroscope article on nanoparticles in Homeopathy. In circles I travel in, junk science is used more commonly than pseudoscience to describe the same thing. Pathological science and pseudoscience are often used interchangeably, e.g., by what Brangifer referred to about DNA-electromagnetism studies and homeopathy (called alternatively pseudoscience or pathological science. I almost did not post at these, thinking it would attract a bunch of nuts, but I decided to do it anyway because I thought I was being biased if I did not. PPdd (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Assuming good faith, I have tolerantly read George1918's extensive ultra-POV comments at homeopathy talk, as well as the full and sincere time other editors have spent responding to them. His proposal for Homeopathy as RS to put science and medicine things in the homeopathy article was voted down by unanious consensus. George1918 has made ZERO contributions to WP other than (1) many huge comments at the talk page of homeopahy, (2) linking a single date (e.g., "1918" to "1918") in a handful of articles (edits that were immediately reverted, with edit summary not to link dates, which he ignored), and (3) capitalizing "no." to "No" in one article.[14] It is odd that he created a new account a short time ago, but seemed to have sophisticated knowledge of WP policies from the outset. The extensive and ultra-fringe POV expressed in comments seems highly disruptive. PPdd (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Is it healthy to develop such an "obsession" for or against an editor following him around? Please reconsider and try to be friendly: provide reasons and reliable sources. It easier and more fun than that you are currently doing. --George1918 (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The meaning of my question was - as I have stated - Is Homeopathy a reliable source for reporting various claims of homeopathy ?. You changed it conducting your poll. I asked this question because I saw the journal Homeopathy to be used as a reference multiply times in the article, without any objection. When it was suggested that claims of homeopathy published in the same journal to be included not as facts or truths but as homeopathy beliefs for information purposes - the journal became automatically unreliable for any purpose. Furthermore another editor -replying to my question- said that all references using homeopathy should be replaced by reliable sources. The same thing of course happens to NCCAM website and the American Medical Association which seem to have double properties: Reliable to take entire quotes describing how much homeopathy is ineffective and unsupported by science and unreliable for reporting any info which might provide such as that NCCAM funds homeopathy research. I don't really know who demonstrates an excessive point of view here. Maybe you should ask yourself. Can we try to be more honest here? I might have to repeat that I have nothing to do with homeopathy and I believe that the topic is not presented netrualy even by wikipedia standards which means : accurate and complete presentation of homeopathy claims and accurate and complete representation of the mainstream experts's opionions - not only the opinion of the skeptics scientists. --George1918 (talk) 03:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
George1918, you talk about honesty, but I believe your presentation is itself misleading. You write: "When it was suggested that claims of homeopathy published in the same journal to be included not as facts or truths but as homeopathy beliefs for information purposes - the journal became automatically unreliable for any purpose." By adding some words there ("to be included not as facts or truths but as homeopathy beliefs for information purposes"), you changed the whole history of what happened. (Maybe you thought those words, but you didn't write them. If you ever did, then it was much later, after you had created much confusion by insisting it was a reliable source. We were fairly clear that it's use as a RS is very limited, that is for opinions, but not for scientific facts. The poll was worded as it was because we needed to make it clear to you that Homeopathy couldn't be used for such purposes. For the opinions of homeopathists? Of course. That's obvious. I believe there was ONE editor who went a bit overboard at first and declared it couldn't be considered a RS at all, but that editor likely wasn't thinking about the possibility of using it for opinions. No, you're not being honest here. -- Brangifer (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I fail to see any good faith in this comment- if I m asking a simple question, someone changes its words and meaning, creates a little canvassing crusade around and a mess and the same time I m the one to be blamed for this situation? Isn't more than obvious whose mistake and responsibility that is? But my comment on honesty regards the double standards editors have for the same sources: reliable when they are debunking and unreliable when they refer to even a controversial aspect of the topic --George1918 (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
George1918, don't change the subject. You made statements immediately above that are not exact quotes of what you actually said. You added a number of qualifying words that didn't exist in your original statements at Talk:Homeopathy. Your statements above are thus misleading and can give editors who were not involved in the discussions at Talk:Homeopathy the impression that we have somehow misrepresented you. No, your original statements were simple and thus open to interpretation. Here are the first of your statements questioning whether the journal Homeopathy is a "reliable source":
  • The article [ Homeopathy ] states that homeopathic remedies (high dilutions) are indistinguishable from water and the article [journal Homeopathy] disputes that. This a reliable source - correct? --George1918 (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC) [I had to add identification for each use of the word "article", since George1918 was referring to two different things.]
  • Did you make up your minds yet? Is it "homeopathy" a reliable source or not? It cannot be both. --George1918 (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
After that last statement, PPdd formed a poll to clear up that question. The results of the poll provided some good explanations for why it can indeed be both.
So don't try to mislead others here by making statements that aren't true. You didn't ask "Is Homeopathy a reliable source for reporting various claims of homeopathy?" That may have been your "meaning", as you state above, but that was not clear when you made your original, simple, statements. You made the two statements above and neither time was it clear you meant "for reporting various claims of homeopathy" or "included not as facts or truths but as homeopathy beliefs for information purposes". If you had done that there would have been no confusion or need for a poll. No George1918, my reply to you was in good faith. I just point out how your original statements were simple and ambiguous, and how your big objection above is very misleading. That's it. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
It is not. If you create a poll or request for comment it is appropriate to discuss with fellow editors first and not to take their question change its words and then add your interpretation. Adler said the same and he is right in that.--George1918 (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes it is (misleading). Your statements above are misleading and I pointed it out. Don't try to change the subject. The matter of the poll that followed is another matter. You can discuss that until you're blue in the face, and it won't change the fact that your statements above are misleading and your two original questions were simple and ambiguous, and they (because of your POV) caused enough confusion that it was felt necessary to create a poll. -- Brangifer (talk)


Part of the discussion above is bizarre. I must apologise to George1918 for not returning to this thread earlier and seeing what was going on here. George1918 made a comment that was absolutely reasonable for what it was: a short, quick contribution to a long conversation. Ppdd then totally misrepresented this edit with [this edit]. The edit:

  • added a heading right before George1918's comment,
  • removed all indentation from George1918's comment, moving it from level 11 to level 0
  • similarly removed all indentation from Jmh649's response,
  • reformatted Jmh649's reply as if it was a vote in a poll, and
  • added another, genuine poll vote Ppdd themselves.

This was a violation of WP:TALK#Behavior that is unacceptable ("Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context.") and WP:TALK#Others' comments ("Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning [...]").

The edit separated George1918's comment from the discussion to which it was a minor contribution and created the following impression:

  • That George1918 started the poll section.
  • That George1918, rather than commenting briefly and probably wihtout much thought in a long discussion, intended and expected this comment to have a lot of weight.
  • That George1918 supported holding a poll on the question.
  • That Jmh649 supported holding a poll on the question and in fact participated in it.
  • That the context for "reliable source" in George1918's comment was reliability "for physics conclusions" (later section title changes, I believe also by Ppdd, created other, equally wrong impressions) rather than the actual context, in which I, for example, had written: "I doubt that we have to wait for [other sources] before reporting what the paper found as just that: Something that was published in a homeopathy journal."

These were serious distortions of a scale that I initially did not realise at all. This edit did not correct the distortions. It was totally insufficient as a warning about what Ppdd had done. It is unfortunate that George1918 did not immediately revert Ppdd's manipulations. Hans Adler 23:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I may have got a detail wrong in my analysis, but it is totally inacceptable for Ppdd to claim that they did not take comments out of context, as they did here. I propose a stern warning by an admin. I currently have no confidence that the editor will learn from this serious mistake. Hans Adler 00:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiManOne agenda pushing[edit]

clearly pushing an agenda at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood?action=history and time for a topic ban i see —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.168.84.76 (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I see User:WikiManOne working to defuse a lot of recent POV editing... can you offer specific diffs where he's actually promoting a pov? I may be missing whatever it is you're seeing. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

for example at talk:pro-life he is clearly trying to push a pov. i think he has potential to be a good aditor maybe a topic ban from abortion for awhile will help [[184.168.84.76 (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)]]

I hate to put this down, as I see WikiManOne as a good editor, but this and this are troublesome. - NeutralhomerTalk • 21:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
this was worrisome as well. He is a youngin' and capable of growing out of it. I think something in the neighborhood of a 1 month topic-ban would be for the best. - Haymaker (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Awesome, another IP address starts a report on the noticeboard complaining of edits to the same article and gets subsequently banned. This is getting ridiculous... for those of you complaining about my edits to the article, I wish you would take a closer look. I have taken out statements that were POV in both ways and am operating on the basis of consensus on the talk page. This just one example of me taking out a pro-choice POV in the article. [15] WikiManOne 21:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I have ZERO problem removing POV, in fact I encourage it. But the two edits I posted seem to be the removal of alot of posts from media sources. Can you explain why this was necessary? Note: The pro-life/anti-abortion subject is one I know little about. - NeutralhomerTalk • 22:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I believed they constituted undue weight. I note the page later qualified for protection and there was enough consensus during that time for an admin to remove it entirely as I initially did. [16] The reason I removed the verified information in those two posts were because the criticism constituted undue weight imo and was an example of WP:BITR. As you can see from this version of the article, the controversy was the largest section, and there was yet more criticism under legal positions. I thought (and consensus seemed to agree on the talk page leading to the current version) that this was too much mention considering the article's length, I always err on the side of not covering enough negative material than adding too much, but I think this was an obvious case of anti-abortion pov influencing the content of an article. WikiManOne 22:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
The blocked IP was not as a user but for a broken proxy, so I guess you have to AGF on that one. Someone has just flipped pro-life back to anti-abortion. I've left a note on his talk page. Sitush (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Interesting, an IP address using a proxy gets blocked after doing the same actions as another IP address who was blocked for trying to get around their previous indefinite ban. Very interesting. WikiManOne 22:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Okie Dokie, that makes sense. I probably would have found that with a little more digging but I wouldn't know how to make heads or tails of that subject. My concerns are satisfied. I see no agenda pushing here. - NeutralhomerTalk • 22:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Disagree. There is clearly agenda pushing going on from multiple parties on two sides of the abortion issue here. The party in question appears to be playing a rather central role, but is not alone. The entire charade needs to stop. Someone should have closed down that ill advised move discussion as soon as it was born. Now we're left with drama all over the place.Griswaldo (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment - As discussed here, hacking open this can of worms and trying to justify it by pointily opening up another can of worms isn't particularly impressive either. As I suggested above, WikiManOne looks like he's entered WP:BATTLEGROUND territory and could use a break from abortion topics, either self-imposed or as a community decision.Griswaldo (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying he should abort his editing for a while? Oh dear, I went there, didn't I? HalfShadow 22:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

twinkle back[edit]

Nothing productive is going to come of this. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Admin sarekofvulcan said i could have my twinkle back after a week and a half. Its been 2 weeks now and so i would like it back. Thanks Someone65 (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The diff you gave says no such thing. --B (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
In fact, the diff you gave said that a week and a half isn't long enough. Kansan (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone65, your eagerness leads me to believe that not having Twinkle access for another, oh, four months, might not be a bad thing for you and the project. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I must have misunderstood then. She did not give a time limit on my talk page besides a while, and later the above quote. Someone65 (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Uninvolved bystander here, but this reminds me of back when I was a kid on Christmas morning, trying to wake my parents so we can open presents. Dad would sleepily say "Later...," and I would wait all of about thirty seconds before I tried to wake them again, saying "It's later!" I think what's being said here is that the amount of time served isn't the issue, but the amount of improvement of your editing. -- RoninBK T C 19:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, i have made 400 constructive edits and several non-automated vandal reverts since the twinkle removal and created 1 article. I participated in many proposals and requests. I think that is considered imporvement. Someone65 (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd look for at least 100 non-automated vandal reverts with very few errors, before restoring twinkle. Twinkle in general probably causes more problems than it solves. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
400 constructive edits is about half the number of superfluous or erroneous warnings you issued with Twinkle in a single day (January 18). Keep at it. --King Öomie 20:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Most of my warnings were not erroneous. They were simply out of date. I did not know you were not allowed to give warnings a long time after the IP made the vandalous error. My mistakes were in good faith and they wont happen again. Someone65 (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
They were "erroneous". Keep editing without Twinkle (nobody needs it) and prove to everyone's satisfaction that you will indeed use Twinkle properly in the future. It's no badge of honour to be a Twinkle user. Heck, even I'm allowed to use Twinkle. Malleus Fatuorum 00:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll echo that. My entire editing history was created without the use of any automated tools. That includes vandal warnings, vandal reporting to AIV, maintenance edits, article tagging, etc. and now that I'm an admin it includes blocking, protecting, deletion closures, etc. I've never found a need for Twinkle. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

Someone65 should wait 6 months from today, which would be August 5, before asking for TWINKLE again. At that time, he should bring his request for TWINKLE here to ANI. If Someone65 brings a request for TWINKLE before then, the clock starts over on that day. What say you? - NeutralhomerTalk • 17:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

12 days ago you tagged my article for deletion two days before I was finished referencing while i was actively building the article . Then you falsely accused me of canvassing when i simply notified editors experienced in christianity. Now this? Do you have issues or something? Someone65 (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I thought we already resolved the issues about your article, etc. Obviously not. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is resolved, i'm just wondering about Neutralhomer's bad faith and general negative attitude in the few interactions i've had with him on wikipedia.Someone65 (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
No "negative attitude" or "bad faith" here, just think you need to take everyone's advice and wait for awhile before asking for TWINKLE access back again. Showing up every couple weeks (or 12 days as you say) will become tiresome and quick. To prevent that from happening is exactly why I presented this proposal. - NeutralhomerTalk • 18:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
wait huh? Thats pretty ironic coming from you Someone65 (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Some of us learn from our mistakes, but this is not about me, now is it? - NeutralhomerTalk • 18:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think this proposal is strictly necessary; IMO there's the Twinkle blacklist and admin discretion. But I'm not opposing it. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I would be open to any suggestions you have. If you feel 6 months is too long a length of time, please let me know and I will reword. But I think something needs to be in place so we aren't here again in 2 weeks with another thread about this. - NeutralhomerTalk • 18:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I think Neutralhomer should remember my erroneous twinkle notices were made in good faith; and i have actually learnt from them. Someone65 (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
        • I understand that and I appreciate your eagerness to get back to work, but 400 erroneous warnings (according to King Öomie above) is a little much. While you have done well in getting some edits in the past couple weeks, I feel you need to work without TWINKLE for awhile. If you can do that, then I will gladly support you getting TWINKLE back. - NeutralhomerTalk • 18:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Many of them were out of date, but not exactly 400 erroneous edits as you described it, but yeah. Someone65 (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
            • A little rule I use, if it is more than 72 hours old (3 days) and even that might be pushing it (feel free to use 48 hours or 2 days), don't bother issuing a warning. Any sooner than that, then go ahead and issue a warning. But the warning must be for vandalism only. Admins like for vandalism warnings to be issued for vandalism only. Warnings you issue must be for what the person or anon has done. Plus there has to be the escalation in warnings, i.e: Warn1, Warn2, etc. - NeutralhomerTalk • 18:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
              • Since twinkle is so common now i guess its time someone should create a Twinkle Guideline article/heading in the near future to avoid issues such as this one. Maybe you could volunteer. Someone65 (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
                • It's actually nothing to do with Twinkle - it's about how to deal with vandalism in general, whether you do it manually, using Twinkle, using Huggle, or whatever. It comes from understanding all the vandalism policies, and we have quite a lot written about vandalism - I don't know if there's any specific guideline about what might count as stale anywhere? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

─────────────────────────@Someone65: I don't write policy. :) That is not my department or nor my strength.
@Boing!: I understand that, what I was talking about was so that he didn't issue warnings to things that were out of date and get in trouble to use a 48 or 72 hour rule. - NeutralhomerTalk • 19:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Understood, yes - it was Someone65's suggestion that it should be in a Twinkle guide I was referring to. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
This warnings notice guideline does not address the time scale of when to issue notices. Should I add a passage to the WP:USETEMP or WP:VAND saying something like Make sure warning notices are issued no later than 7 days or 168 hours after the edit was made. Or something similar? Someone65 (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
No, you shouldn't. That would require discussion and consensus. Let me make it clear, the above 72 hour (3 day) time limit is my policy and not one of Wikipedia's by any stretch of the imagination. My bringing it up was as a suggestion to you so you wouldn't get in trouble for warning people who had done something, say for example, a month ago. Again, it is not a policy of Wikipedia, but my own personal policy that I like to use. - NeutralhomerTalk • 21:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I support Neutralhomer's quite reasonable proposal for a 6-month moratorium on Twinkle privileges for Someone65. There's plenty of productive non-automated work Someone65 can do in the meantime. 28bytes (talk) 06:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Two initially involved admins did not feel the need to resort to any sanctions, so i see no reason for Neutralhomer's proposal. Also, i did not break any WP:USETEMP or WP:VAND policies, so this is blown totally out of proportion. Besides, i dont think Neutralhomer's proposals should carry much weight considering his Track Record and long history of failed nominatons. Someone65 (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I took a look at your contribution history before supporting Neutralhomer's proposal here, and I'm actually a little surprised you haven't been already blocked for your grossly misleading edit summaries [17] [18], which you continue to do even after receiving two final warnings. (And not only continue to do, but make no apologies for doing it.) You may not recognize it, but Neutralhomer is doing you a favor here by suggesting you stay off the automated tools. Misusing them, as you have done, annoys and antagonizes other editors, and if your goal is still to become an admin, annoying and antagonizing editors is something you'll want to avoid. Another thing you'll want to avoid is attacking Neutralhomer, SarekOfVulcan and any other editor you run into a disagreement with. Accusing them of bad faith, as you've done above, is unwise and unhelpful to your cause. Accept their advice and learn from it, and you will have a successful career here. 28bytes (talk) 08:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
      • For my edit summaries, i sort of agree with your concern. Maybe i should have used "reworded" instead as an edit summary. But i thought "typo" and "grammer" are pretty close synonyms. Although maybe i just need to work on my vocabulory a bit more; i wont make any more misleading edit summaries. I did not grow up in an English-speaking country. Someone65 (talk) 08:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Wow....this is, well, an interesting "typo". See, that wasn't a "typo", it wasn't "grammer" (spelled grammar, by the way) an it wasn't "reworded". It was the wholesale addition of unsourced and unverified NPOV. Also, don't blame a language barrier for those edits, as you have done a perfectly good job thusfar editing, speaking and typing. That one ain't gonna fly. Also, 28bytes touched on this and I am going back to it, attacking me (like I care) or Sarek (an admin, bad idea there) could be considered a veiled personal attack, which would make you in violation of WP:NPA. To answer your question, "what sort of edits should i make?"....DO NOT MAKE THESE KIND. You need to quickly learn the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, or as 28bytes also touched on, a block could soon be in your future. The community can and will only take so much of a user trying their patience before they give them the ol' shove out the door....I know, I was given that shove once. Most, though, aren't helped back in that door. Learn the ropes, learn the policies, calm down, and chill. - NeutralhomerTalk • 09:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Oh and I looked at your diff where you say two admins said no restrictions were necessary, actually, that is bull. Will Beback stated "If there's any further activity like that I will block the account to prevent further disruption". That was them not resorting to restictions? You obviously weren't swayed by this as you removed the entire thread with a nonchalant "cool". Shows me you didn't pick up on the fact that you were almost blocked. Which leads me to believe, you are either jerking us around or we have a WP:COMPETENCE issue on our hands. - NeutralhomerTalk • 09:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
            • Believe it or not, until fairly recently, English was my third language. I sort of knew what "typo" and "grammer" meant, but I thought their meanings were ambiguous. I honestly need to check a thesaurus or dictionary almost everyday when i'm on wikipedia. (even used them during this discussion) Someone65 (talk) 09:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
              • I am more concerned with the other points you failed to address. - NeutralhomerTalk • 09:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
                • Which one is that? Can you be more specific? You have made dozens of points. Someone65 (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Break[edit]

<od> Read through the last two long posts by me and you will see the points. Feel free to answer them one by one. - NeutralhomerTalk • 09:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Your first point about edit summaries, i already answered twice by citing a language barrier (believe it or not). As for me attacking admin Surak; thats a false statement which you dont have proof for. As for this diff, one admin refused to sanction whereas the second admin would only sanction if i repeated my twinkle abuse. Someone65 (talk) 10:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
See, that whole post above, only one mistake. This isn't a language barrier, it is the introduction of NPOV, which you haven't addressed, so I will ask it straight up....
How is it possible to add "There is also content offensive to prudes who are offended by genitalia images" Talk:Muhammad/FAQ and call it is "typo" when it clearly isn't? Oh, and according to your native language, Dutch, "typo" is spelled and pronounced extremely similarly to the English word "typo" and means the same thing, "A spelling or typographical error." That, sir, was no typographical error. - NeutralhomerTalk • 10:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I dont see a need to continue this repetitive discussion. Nor do i think its necessary to explain why I made a faulty edit summary from last year when I already explained myself above. If i did not fully understand the meaning of "typo" or "grammer" because English isn't my first language, whats hard to understand about that? Someone65 (talk) 11:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Indef block proposal for Egg Centric[edit]

I would like User:Egg Centric to be sanctioned for;

  • closing a section heading which was opened just 5 minutes prior [19] (which was actively being worked on btw)
  • He also called me F-ing stupid. [20]
  • He then calls me a troll here
  • while i was writing the previous sentence he once again closed my proposal [21]
  • He continues to insult in the below discussion.

He did all that in the space of five minutes. So thats violating WP:CIV, WP:EW, WP:DEL, WP:PA etc. Someone65 (talk) 12:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

See thread above. I am not reverting this obvious trolling due to the obvious conflict of interest, but, well, it's obvious trolling. Note that the section I closed, ironically, was another stupid block proposal against an administrator. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the f-word, but I was commenting on the gross stupidity of the proposal, not the contributor, who I'm sure is a marvellous fellow with much to give to his fellow human beings, although, I would submit (and indeed have submitted in his own block proposal) not by editing Wikipedia... Egg Centric (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • - I can't see any good reason for user eggcentric to hat usersomeone65s comment and no reason to revert it hatted again. User eggcentric should also stop telling users they are fucking stupid - its a personal attack.Off2riorob (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I did not call the user fucking stupid, I called his actions fucking stupid. However, let's forget the fucking - I apologise for that. The actions remain stupid. I hid the comment because it's blatant trolling (and an actual personal attack, for what it's worth). If you really wish to unhat it, then please feel free to do so. Egg Centric (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
      • How is it a personal attack? Someone65 (talk) 13:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
        • I'm not wasting time on this. I've unhidden it as a show of good faith. Enjoy your remaining time on Wikipedia. Egg Centric (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Egg Centric has apologised (which he should have). If Someone65 is genuine, he will accept the apology, and the matter can be closed here and now. If he can't, then he had better explain why not. (Is he saying that Egg Centric has a history of incivility?)--Toddy1 (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

what are you doing? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

@toddy I will accept the apology and drop this block proposal if i get a sorry which i havent got yet.
@Seb. I did that when egg centric was blanking and hatting this ANI talk page. Someone65 (talk) 13:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I have nothing further to add. (as you once acknowledged. Egg Centric (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, you havent apologised for calling me f*cking stupid. Someone65 (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I never called you fucking stupid. I called your proposal fucking stupid. As it happens, it is stupid. It's also a personal attack. It's also trolling. You are a troll. I apologise for using a four letter word, and perhaps for not being entirely clear. Egg Centric (talk) 14:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Calling my proposal f*cking stupid still falls under WP:PA. If you disagree with a proposal you could have simply voted oppose. Someone65 (talk) 14:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I apologise for any breaches of Wiki policy. That do ya? Egg Centric (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
You didn't call the proposal "stupid", you said "don't be stupid". That reads as being directed at the editor, not the proposal, even if you intended it otherwise. You also shouldn't mess with other users' comments here, even if they appear stupid. Let the admins do that. Note that I do not defend S65's behavior. He appears to be a little too anxious to get automated tools back. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think he gives a stuff about the tools one way or another, he's here to troll. However on reflection, I can see how it was read as a personal attack, although that would make it apologised for anyway per 14:13 comment. Had I not made the 14:13 comment, I would therefore be apologising for it now. Because trolls are very thin skinned individuals :D Egg Centric (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
"Dont be f*cking stupid" is an obvious personal attack. You are still calling me a troll, and you haven't retracted from your statements. Someone65 (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
You are a troll. There's no need to retract that statement. I'm amazed you're still unblocked. Well, actually you are of course indefinitely blocked as User:Ahmed Ghazi... Egg Centric (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I just found out you're fourteen. That explains a lot. Come back when your frontal lobes develop please. Egg Centric (talk) 14:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked Egg Centric (talk · contribs) for 24 hrs. That last statement above (among all the other points) are all personal attacks including WP:OUTING, and the user needs a cool-off. This is not to support or deny anything with the indef block suggestion. --MASEM (t) 14:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, man... can we now somehow go back to S65 being a sock of someone who's indeffed? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
@Seb I assure you that is not me. I welcome a sock check because i havent got anything to hide. Someone65 (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
If you're truly concerned about wikipedia, then just focus on editing and ignore anything that looks like a personal attack, because it doesn't matter. Article content is what matters. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
There was a checkuser; came back positive. So... what are you still doing here, and why are you throwing all this stuff around when you're on such thin ice? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, if he has been determined to be a sockmaster, why is he still being allowed to edit? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not on thin ice. That checkuser later came negative Someone65 (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
If you dont believe me you can check me again on WP:SPI. Someone65 (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Diffs and/or an SPI page, please? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
[22] Says you are a sock, but were blocked a week for it while the other account was blocked. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
(ec 2x) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ahmed Ghazi/Archive — You're thin on my ice. And when you are in that situation, the last thing you do is to come here twice within 24 hours, posting proposals to have others blocked, and then not letting go of it after having received an apology. There are boomerangs. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
User egg centric did not apologize. Matter fact he continued to call me a troll and then made further personal attacks. Someone65 (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
So now you resort to lying? you want the diffs or can you simply scroll up a few lines? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
This was his last statement where he calls me a child without a front brain. This is his 2nd last statement where he calls me a "troll". Does that sound like someone who's sorry to you? Someone65 (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Someone65 was using alternative accounts and I can't see any retraction of that checkuser report, he was blocked only a week, the user was also indefinitely blocked at one recent point by Sarek and there was a thread opened at ANI Proposed community ban on Someone65 but the user was unblocked after that ANI discussion by User:Dougweller. Off2riorob (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
S65 needs to be immediately indef'd for socking. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Concur. Indef S65 immediately. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, hang on a second. The user was already blocked for sockpuppeting - for a week. I'm not sure why we're blocking him again when there's no evidence they've returned to that behavior. TNXMan 15:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, he does seem to have gotten away with that extremely lightly a week for quite a messy sock report and his disruption appears to have continued and now he is here on a lazy Sunday afternoon trowing boomerangs at user Egg centric. Off2riorob (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Since when do sockmasters get off with a 1-week block? You sock, you're done. No compromise. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
(ec) As you can see on this very page, there are other issues as well. See section above (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_for_Indef_Block) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I have made thousands of constructive edits and several vandal reverts and redirects and created 2 articles since the block. I participated in many proposals and requests. I think that is considered imporvement.Someone65 (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
(reply to Seb) I have no issue with a block for other behavior (and I'm not saying there are not other problems) - I just think it's unfair to block someone for sockpuppeting and then come back two months later and reblock them indefinitely. TNXMan 15:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't matter to me which issue s/he gets blocked for, as long as there'll be a block; I've read enough. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to !vote in favour of the sock block for s65, you can't let someone get away with doing that. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

There's absolutely no doubt that Someone65's recent editing has been quite disruptive. He or she neeeds to stop asking for Twinkle back, stop commenting on AN/I, stop doing anything but constructive editing on articles or other subsantive parts of the encyclopedia. If they don't, then block away. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I second all of Egg Centric's sentiments. I can't believe you blocked him. This place is Kafkaesque. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
EggCentric was temporarily blocked for obvious NPAs in this thread alone after being told what he was saying was NPA. That has no bearing on the end result, whether s65 should be blocked, or the like. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Back to Someone65[edit]

comment Can we get one thing clear here regarding the socking of s65? because it seems the discussion starts from different premisses here... user:Zaza8675 and s65 are linked together by the A.Ghazi spi and zaza9675 is in the category socks of s65 (not: socks of A. Ghazi). They were blocked for a week for that. If I am reading well he was not linked to indeffed user:Ahmed Ghazi. Could someone confirm if I am right here? And were comments by some here like "there is no getting away with socking" based on the idea that s65 is the sock of an indeffed user; or based on the idea that he has socked once... L.tak (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

What L.tak said. If you actually look at the SPI, you will see that the Someone65 account is unrelated to all of the other accounts, except for his previous account User:Zaza8675, which he no longer uses. There is no basis for a sock block at this point. I would argue, however, that a block for his other activity, including the blatant canvassing Seb links to above, would not be inappropriate. He's already been given warnings against canvassing in the recent past (which he ignored, continuing to canvass anyway - I can dig up the diffs if needed.) Not to mention the pointy indef block proposals he is making against everyone who challenges him. Again, I'm little surprised that after all of the post-final-warning disruption Someone65 has engaged in, he's still unblocked. 28bytes (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
My reading of the sockpuppetry report agrees. BTW while I don't know enough to comment on the indef block I suggest any proposal for an indef block which mentions any linkage to Ahmed Ghazi be withdrawn immediately pending any necessary rewrite as such an error is likely to destroy the proposal. Nil Einne (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually reading more carefully they were not checked against Ahmed Ghazi so we can't say they are unrelated to Ahmed Ghazi but from my reading of the case, there's no reason at all to think they are. (The linkage of Ahmed Ghazi to the case was weak hence why it was rejected and the linkage was to someone who was unrelated to Someone65 anyway.) Edit: Actually showing my inexperience with sockpuppetry investigations, while they were not explicitly checked against Ahmed Ghazi if there was any relation it probably would have been picked up in the general sleeper checker the same way the Zaza8675/Someone65 linkage was even though Zaza8675 wasn't part of the check so I guess the 'unrelated to Ahmed Ghazi' is probably correct (unless Ahmed Ghazi was too stale) even if it wasn't specifically checked. (In any case, I'm still not seeing any doubt there is no known linkage whether it's a unknown linkage or a known no linkage.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for Indef Block[edit]

After exhausting my patience with his lack of answers and what appear to me to be outright lies, I am proposing that User:Someone65 be blocked indef. This comes not without a great deal of trying on my part, along with others, to get the user to see how things work around here.

The user has previously been to AN and ANI several times for various incidents. 1, 2, 3 (which has a subthread about a proposal of a community ban on Someone65). These are just three AN or ANI threads in his short 7 month time here.

What has me the most concerned is the user's blantant attempt to add information that is unsourced and unverified under the veil of "typo" or "grammer". The misuse of edit summaries has led to two final warnings, but the user continues with this behavior, making no apologizes for it, but blames it on a language barrier, even though the majority of his edits are mistake free and show no signs of someone who is on his "third language".

The user, after going on a mass warning spree with TWINKLE on January 18th, was told why his behavior was unacceptable, even with one admin threatening to block him. His response was nonchalant "cool" and removal of the thread. This lack of remorse for misuse of TWINKLE led to it's removal a couple hours later. The user has repeatedly asked for TWINKLE back, while consensus shows the user isn't ready and should wait.

The user has tried, unsuccessfully, to get User:Imadjafar topic banned from the Islam area of Wikipedia. This looks benign at first, but contribs show the user reverting edits made by Imadjafar, all of which were are in good faith. Someone65 has added misleading edit summaries like "the sources you gave do not say that" when sourced directly to the Qu'ran or "per WP:OR and WP:NPOV" where there is not happening. This appears to be an ongoing attempt at POV pushing and Wiki-stalking.

But what really takes the cake, is the user is linked, by checkuser (see near the bottom), to indef blocked User:Ahmed Ghazi. This connection lead to a one week block for "Abusing multiple accounts". The indef block for "disruptive editing" on December 23 is just the cherry on top for this on WT:ISLAM.

I believe with the TWINKLE abuse, the violations to WP:NPA, WP:NPOV, WP:STALK, and WP:SOCK, along with a WP:COMPETENCE issue, that it is best that the indef block be reinstanted. - NeutralhomerTalk • 11:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

In the context of all those socks, the twinkle stuff seems like outright trolling. Wow. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Strong Support Textbook trolling.Egg Centric (talk) 12:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
As per the discussion below, it appears you are misreading the checkuser report. Someone65 is linked to another account and was blocked for a week for it. Neither Someone65 nor the other user are linked to Ahmed Ghazi. I don't know about the proposal in general, perhaps it's still sound but I suggest it be withdrawn immediately pending any necessary re-write since it seems likely that the incorrect linkage is going to destroy it even if it is sound. Nil Einne (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
If I am incorrect on the CU (is there a CU around who can verify this?), I will issue a retraction and an apology. - NeutralhomerTalk • 19:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
While I don't see any harm getting confirmation, I don't see there's much doubt if you read the comments in the actual investigation. Nil Einne (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Neutralhomer, if you withdraw this proposal and create a new one without reference to the sock-puppetry (of which Someone65 appears to have been cleared), I will support it. I was content with just a 6-month moratorium on the use of automated tools, but after Someone65's canvassing, pointy "counterproposals" and repeated references to other editors' autism, I think some time off for Someone65 to familiarize himself with WP:CANVASS, WP:NPA, WP:POINT and WP:NOTTHEM would be in his and Wikipedia's best interests. The canvassing alone (after he's been explicitly warned not to) is sufficient disruption to warrant a block in my opinion. 28bytes (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Typically, we just strike sections, so there isn't multiple proposals floating around. Since you posted below (which I just noticed) that it wasn't a socking incident, 2 editors is just as good as a CU, I am going to strike the section about sockpuppetry. With that, I apologize for the accusation that Someone65 was connected with the indef blocked user. - NeutralhomerTalk • 19:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

My proposal for an indefinite block[edit]

I'm not mocking neutralhomer's block attempt. But if i deserve an indefinite block, then Neutralhomer is in need of a harsher infinite block, considering his current behavior and previous total of seventeen blocks. We are currently (see above) in the process of a mindboggingly repetitive discussion where i have to keep repeating to him that my English is not perfect.

  • Falsely accusing me of attacking an admin without giving evidence. (a false accusation btw).
  • His lengthy Track Record of blocks is the longest i've ever seen in the history of wikipedia.
  • His history of AfD nominations often fail indicating Neutralhomer's edits are possibly a detrimental effect on wikipedia.
  • 12 days ago he tagged my article for deletion two days before I was finished referencing while I was actively building the article.
  • He later falsely accuses me of canvassing when all I did was neutrally invite established editors (who i dont know btw) who seemed experienced in Christianity related articles.
  • Maybe his erratic outs-bursts have something to do with his autism.
  • Bringing up null issues from last year. (see above)

I think Neutralhammer has a history of blowing discussions out of proportion. I still can't believe how a twinkle request was turned into healthy discussion, then to an unnecessary argument, then somehow a block request. Someone65 (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

:Don't be so stupid. Hid trolling. Egg Centric (talk) 12:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC) Unhid trolling and personal attack. Let the incompetence and trolling vindictiveness of Someone65 be visible to all. Egg Centric (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

  • His history of blocks which hasn't seen a block since April of last year, doesn't seem like very compelling evidence for an block of any kind. Bringing up something for deletion is not grounds for a block either, neither is correctly pointing out someone's canvassing, and pointing out someone's medical history adds little to a claim which lacks sufficient evidence for any action except to show someone's imbecile capabilities, and I'm not referring to neutralhomer here. WikiManOne 19:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Need a Stat Table, Please[edit]

Could a user on the WP:1.0 project or an admin create a stat table at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Albemarle County articles by quality statistics please and link it at WP:ALVA? It would be much appreciated. Thanks...NeutralhomerTalk • 03:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Worked with an admin on IRC and got it taken care of. Credit goes to Sven Manguard for finding the page. - NeutralhomerTalk • 07:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

MuZemike and HIV/AIDS[edit]

Resolved: The boomerang came back. HalfShadow 19:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

There is considerable controversy within the HIV community about when therapy HIV infection should be initiated. Most experts believe that everyone who is infected with the virus should be offered therapy. There are many activists within the HIV community who oppose this. These activists are very militant. MuZemike is one of these activists. He has blocked me from editing Wikipedia for this reason. [23] This is my ONLY crime. He has made it clear that he will not stop abusing his Check User privileges on his own.

P.S. I cannot notify MuZemike of this incident report because his talk page is semi-protected and I am blocked from editing it. ~~KBlott —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.236.189 (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I have blocked KBlott a good while ago due to persistent sock puppetry and disruption on HIV and other articles pertaining to AIDS denialism: please see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of KBlott and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KBlott/Archive. He's on here right now because I blocked a recent sock of his, NotKBlott (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 19:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Also, what was this user going to do with KBott (talk · contribs), which I just also blocked? –MuZemike 19:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
*WhhstwhhstwhsstwhsstSMACK!* HalfShadow 19:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
No you blocked me because I don’t adhere to your denialist views. I broke no other rule. --KBlott —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.236.189 (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
IP blocked. Nakon 19:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I would recommend a rangeblock so the user doesn't IP hop. - NeutralhomerTalk • 19:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Can someone help[edit]

Resolved: WP:BOOMERANG

Hi,

I wanted to contact a person, on a subject that has nothing to do with Wikipedia, and going to their website I find this comment: Contact My talk page or <removed email>, now as I didn't particularly want to send an email to this individual I followed their advice and posted my message to them on their talk page As they requested.

This was clearly a "honey trap", because within a few minutes of posting it on their talk page as they directed from outside Wikipedia, someone reported me for breaching a Wikipedia policy (You won't believe me but I know because I went back to delete it!)

Now, as this William Connolley only does the climate - any personal message to this guy is going to involve the climate and not everyone is going to be "how wonderful you are". This is a communication that has nothing to do with Wikipedia - and if I broke some policy, it was this guy who was responsible for encouraging communication on the climate when he has been in the thick of all this (I hardly ever edit wikipedia because of people like him)

It was a private message to this individual which someone then abused procedure to ban me for several days. Frankly, I'm already disgusted with Wikipedia (as you will be able to tell by my writings), but I have NEVER BROKEN THE RULES ... except where they were blatantly stupid like this ban. My username is Isonomia ... and I'm sorry if you post and I don't respond because Wikipedia doesn't want to hear from climate sceptics like me, so I don't see the point even trying to edit ... so I only log in once in a blue moon. PS. I've not notified anyone ... as a sceptic I get banned if I do contact people ... and no doubt if I don't so what's the point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.234.255 (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I am slightly confused on what exactly you are requesting. - NeutralhomerTalk • 20:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
You were blocked for blatant harrasment – don't pretend it was anything else. Your IP has now also been blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not very sympathetic.
Your post to WMC was rude. You claim it has nothing to do with Wikipedia, yet you posted from a Wikipedia account to a Wikipedia talk page and discussed Wikipedia business (banning). I'll AGF your current explanation that you came across the request to post at WP from an outside source, but there is nothing in your message to indicate that, nor would that even give you absolution. I happen to think a warning, rather than a block was warranted, but you are not exactly blameless in this.--SPhilbrickT 20:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I would also suggest even if it didn't get consideration trying to keep [24] on your user page doesn't help. Nil Einne (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

User removing non-free license tags on derivative works[edit]

Mechamind90 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly removing the non-free licenses on images that are derivative works of copyrighted product labels, logos, etc. The user is also changing the speedy deletion tags to ones that are inappropriate for some reason. The following images are the ones in question, I don't know if the user has been doing this to others:

  1. File:YoplaitS.jpg
  2. File:Lomza Beer.jpeg
  3. File:WarkaBeer.jpeg
  4. File:HapoelscarfS.jpg
  5. File:RamahshirtS.jpg
  6. File:CzechdollS.jpg
  7. File:NaotboxS.jpg

Kelly hi! 23:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't want this to be considered an incident. Trademark is obvious, but I'm comparing it to others that I've seen such as some of the images that can be found in the article on Coca-Cola, which are identified as public domain. What I'd say is that if those particular images are free but subject to trademark, the same applies to these (but first would require removal of the DI tag in general, which I didn't do). mechamind90 23:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
All I know is that not all images that contain a photo of a trademarked brand but are still just photos are not in the same field. When they're all the same (except in the case of specific products that were made pre-1923, or PD-70 or any free license), only then can we really consider the general issue resolved. mechamind90 23:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I may be confused but what does public domain Coca-Cola trademark images have to do with File:RamahshirtS.jpg (where the issue doesn't seem to be trademark at all)? Also if you 'don't know' might it be advisable to either seek help or leave it to someone who does know? Are you aware of how seriously we treat copyright issues. Nil Einne (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • All the above listed images are copyvios except for File:HapoelscarfS.jpg and File:RamahshirtS.jpg, for which the copyrighted portions are not the main subject of the photo and are a small enough part to fall under de minimis. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
    I agree those two images are close to the borderline; they'd be deleted on Commons (likely) since the copyrighted parts of the image are what they are being used for. Kelly hi! 03:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
And yes, I am aware of Wikipedia regarding copyright and being more strict than general copyright law, but what I was trying to say is that not all photos containing such trademarks are treated equally (whether considered free or non-free, only one would make sense, and I actually don't mind which one). mechamind90 05:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • For File:HapoelscarfS.jpg, the actual copyrighted logo parts are very small (the text would fall under {{pd-ineligible}}, I'd imagine), so I don't think that would be deleted. File:RamahshirtS.jpg is much more borderline; I would go the FfD/PUF route for that. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
    So are we agreed that the user was wrong to remove the non-free licenses on all of these images? Should I revert? Kelly hi! 04:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Finally a reply. I would agree that they are unsuitable for the Commons, but I agree with the De Minimis. Personally I would say keep the GNU licenses, but tag the images as subject to trademark (except for Naot, which I replaced in a safety measure as the entire image appeared to contain the copyright in the photo). mechamind90 05:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I still don't get this obsession with trademarks. Either there are copyright issues with File:RamahshirtS.jpg or there aren't. Trademarks is at best a minor point. The logos there look like they are clear complex enough to be covered by copyright, I'm not even sure if the 'Ramah Israel Day Camp' would really worry about trademarks. Nil Einne (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

So it looks like Nyttend (talk · contribs) has removed all tags from the above items, even those that are obvious copyvios. Some help here, please? Kelly hi! 06:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, formally I guess he's right about "di-nopermission" being the wrong tag. We have some confusion here about which level of authorships the tags are meant to apply to: if we're talking about the copyright and authorship of the original product designs, then "no permission" is beside the point because nobody has actually claimed they were released freely, and nobody would expect a release of those to be filed with otrs. And if we are talking about the authorship of the photograph, then its self-made status is not really in doubt. Wouldn't PUI be the correct venue for the whole thing? Fut.Perf. 06:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps, except there's really no doubt the subject of the images is non-free. Or is someone really arguing that the uploader owns the copyright to the product labels/logos/3D art in question? Kelly hi! 06:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I stumbled on these and started marking some of them as {{derivative}}, Mechamind90 has already removed one of them saying "It is identified as just a photo anyway" - which, to me anyway, means nothing, and it has zero bearing on potential copyvios. A picture of a copyrighted work is still under the original copyright. As for Nyttend, they have an history of removing tags and they have been warned about it. But that is another issue all together. In this case, about this user, it seems to be a combination of things. For example File:Lomza Beer.jpeg was upped using "(GFDL)" as the license (seems the uploader meant {{GFDL}}) and a bot tagged it for having no license info so it was changed to {{WTFPL}}. But as this is just a picture of a products label it *is* a derivative, and should have been marked as such, more so since the license is not correct. I see what Kelly did and it was really fine. Mechamind90 could have simply added the {{derivative}} tag and left the rest alone, so I am really unsure of why they didn't. A lot of what was done by both Nyttend and Mechamind90 is just extending a process which doesn't need to be extended in case such as these. My slant would have been to mark most of these with the {{derivative}} tag first, and also the {{trademark}} tag if applicable, and wait to see if anyone "fixed" it. Kelly did, in reality, "fix" the incorrect license. Perhaps someone else should have added the {{db-norat}} tag (Most likely would have been done by a bot) but there is nothing really that prevents the same editor from doing both. Removal of the tags for that reason is not looking at the actual image/s.
As for sending everything to IFD or PUF, that can become an extra step that in many cases is not needed. I would say File:CzechdollS.jpg for sure should go to PUI because there is no real indication of the "original" source of the doll (i.e - who made it?) and it could very well be under copyright and/or trademark. The others are fairly obvious that the uploader would not own the copyrights or the trademarks, so we already know the license is not correct. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Bot Request[edit]

Hey All, I was wondering if someone could do an assessment job on all the articles in Category:Unassessed Albemarle County articles via a bot. They would just need to match the assessments of the already exsisting templates. L ike if WP:FOO is Class C with Low Importance, WP:ALVA (the WP link for the project) would be the same. Could someone do this? - NeutralhomerTalk • 01:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC) • Go Steelers!

Is WP:BRQ not open for requests like this? Carcharoth (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I knew we had a page for it, just hadn't the clue where it was. Normally I just ask a bot operator, but couldn't find one. Must all be watching the Super Bowl. :) - NeutralhomerTalk • 02:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC) • Go Steelers!

Gary Moore[edit]

There are unconfirmed reports of the death of Gary Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I have semiprotected for 4 hours, by whihc time some reliable sources should be available if it is true. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

News reports start trickling in. Only two so far and I can't acces them. Edokter (talk) — 17:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
[27] Irish Times seems to be the first reliable... --MASEM (t) 17:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • And BBC and others. I removed semiprotection. Very sad, he was a seriously good musician, something you can't say about every famous rock band member. Guy (Help!) 17:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I think this is the first time Guy and I can agree on something. Gary Moore was an excellent musician. Picked up on him after I heard "Over the Hills and Far Away" on WXPN one night and have been checking his stuff out since. Major bummer. :( - NeutralhomerTalk • 20:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Wow, what a shame. Amazing player, amazing (Les Paul) sound. Drmies (talk) 05:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia91: personal attacks[edit]

Resolved: Unless somebody thinks they've got grounds for requesting checkuser, this thread isn't going anywhere; there's no proof for or against. Editors are welcome to watchlist this editor, but, for now, please assume good faith and don't bite. m.o.p 06:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This user has called a fellow editor "liberal scum" [28] when he disagreed with his use of "liberal" and "socialist" in a "pejorative" way. I believe a block of some sort is certainly appropriate. This user has violated WP:CIVIL as well as WP:NPA.

As a side note, an indefinite ban would be overkill, but a short(in comparison) ban would clearly send the message that this type of behavior is not welcomed by the wider community. WikiManOne 02:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I already reported that to AIV, and an admin has told me he's going to keep his eye on that editor. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, the edit I showed certainly merits more than "keep[ing] an eye" on him, don't you think? WikiManOne 02:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Unless this editor is the reincarnation of someone else they have been around all of a day. A warning should suffice.Griswaldo (talk) 02:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
"Liberal scum" as opposed to "conservative scum", I suppose. The editor in question is on the radar now, so we'll see what happens, if anything. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I dropped them a note about WP:CIV. If an admin wishes to offer a sterner warning please do. Clearly not acceptable commentary but they appear to be a newbie.Griswaldo (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
This user has managed to provoke considerable conflict in his first day of editing. I notice that his user page says "Please don't be rude". I think that a short block would be helpful as it would allow him time to review WP policy and guidelines before continuing to edit. However, his edit history indicates that he will probably continue to provoke controversy. TFD (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
His edit history? You mean 15 edits total in his first day here? Granted it isn't a stellar list of edits by any means, but I think if there is ever a time someone needs to be warned before being blocked, its on their first day of editing. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Between vandalism and incivility, I think he deserves it. First day or not. WikiManOne 02:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree a short block would be in order... although I agree, by the tone of his first day he will probably continue to provoke controversy. WikiManOne 02:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
E91 is brand new. Don't bite the newbies. Go light. And try to rein in any prejudice you may feel toward editors with conservative points of view. I dropped him a note, too. And I would be fascinated to know if I'm the one that inadvertently alerted WM1. --Kenatipo speak! 02:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
WP:BITE applies. And I recall an editor accusing me of being pro-fascist in the past, and one editor who was officially warned about doing such to another editor - but who was not even given a 10 second block for the infraction. Seems that such an editor who was given lenient treatment ought not be calling for blood here. Meanwhile [29] has an editor saying articles must be written from a neutral point of view, not a right wing extremist ethnic nationalist POV which I consider at least as bad as "liberal scum." Collect (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Nope, not as bad. "right wing extremist" is regularly used in the main stream media, as is "ethnic nationalist" when describing Baltic politics. You'd be hard pressed to find a neutral news agency calling someone "liberal scum" in the way this editor did. WikiManOne 03:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

General Comment. The way you all are engaging each other, across the political devide surrounding abortion, makes me wonder if this isn't heading to arbitration, which from my limited exposure to this content area over the last couple of days makes me feel like bad news all around for many of you. Can you all please try to stop being so confrontational to each other (accusations of stalking, filing AN/I reports, igniting battleground type discussions, etc.)? When the reports keep coming here the community will decide, eventually that they have had enough. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The reason this is going on is that admins are letting WM1 run wild. --Kenatipo speak! 03:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I hope none of you are surprised when you are all dragged to arbitration. That's all I'm trying to say. Step back and evaluate how you are all contributing to the atmosphere around this topic presently. If you don't I really don't see this going anywhere else at this rate. That's all. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

<--IMO, letting WM1 use this page as a shortcut WQA and a weapon to hammer opponents in content disputes is a disruption of this page's function. betsythedevine (talk) 03:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Quo usque tandem abutere, WM1, patientia nostra? --Kenatipo speak! 03:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there a better place to report violations? I would be happy to do so if you would point me in the right direction. I apologize if this is a unacceptable disruption to the page. Also, I note that I started using this page after frivolous reports were brought against me at this page which no one objected to. WikiManOne
We actually have a whole slew of pages for reporting different types of behavior, which you can see linked in the big banner at the top of this page. The one in question is probably best addressed by Wikiquette alerts, the etiquette notice board. Or, better yet, by a nice comment from you citing the policy WP:CIVIL that says we shouldn't talk to one another like that. The fact is that in most places on the internet, such type of name calling is somewhere between tolerated and encouraged. Our civility policy is not the norm, and new editors need to be informed of it. Of course, if they choose to continue being uncivil, there are plenty of ways to handle that. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I dealt with the initial AIV report here. I'll watch the editor, but for now, I'm assuming good faith and thinking it's just somebody going after a hot-button issue. Isn't that what politics is? :P m.o.p 04:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) I think the most charitable and productive assumption we can make about this is that we all just got trolled, hard, and that we should all practce WP:DENY, keep "eyes on", and just move on. ( Caveat: Anyone who tells me to assume good faith in this instance should expect imminent and highly-personal acquaintance with an oversized trout. ) If you think about it, to assume good faith here, i.e. to assume that the comments were sincere, would actually be less respectful and would evidence less wikilove by far than to adopt my suggestion. Besides, the newbies are just so tasty! ;-p I'd recommend we close this thread before it spirals into another drama-fest. Anyone with me? Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm marking this as resolved. m.o.p 06:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
As the person who was the target of the original attack, I have to assure you all that I wasn't all that stressed about it. I just wanted to play a little game with the attacker's obvious US bias in his definitions of liberal and socialist, which I saw coming from innocent ignorance, rather than real nasty vindictiveness. I was satisfied with being able to reply that being called liberal where I come from is generally seen as a compliment. I hoped it would get him thinking. No need for any more action. HiLo48 (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Problemwikipedian[edit]

Resolved: Accounts blocked as socks of Eduard Khil :) –MuZemike 13:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Problemwikipedian claims, in this diff to have 17 other accounts for vandalizing Wikipedia. Worth a checkuser looking at this? Pol430 talk to me 12:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Other accounts? Yes (now blocked). 17? Not quite. Thanks for catching this. TNXMan 12:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
So, it wasn't just a clever name? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Premature close of RM proposal[edit]

Resolved: I don't think any admin action is going to occur over this requested move. Please use normal avenues of dispute resolution rather than creating drama. Fences&Windows 01:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
This has been marked resolved for some time now, please continue your conversation elsewhere
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Obviously there is some controversy about the title of this article, but the way we normally establish consensus on these issues is through WP:RM discussion which is why I opened the discussion in the first place. I've asked User:Favonian to reopen the proposal to allow discussion to continue, but this request has been refused (see: User_talk:Favonian#Talk:David_Gold.2C_Baron_Gold). I don't know where consensus is on this article title, but I suggest we will find out by leaving the discussion open for at least the normal week.

So, can an admin please reopen the discussion at Talk:David_Gold,_Baron_Gold#Requested_move_2011Feb02 to allow it to follow a normal course? Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Two comments - I started an RfC which is very related to this here although to date it's had no comments. Secondly I'd agree it's a bad close. The arguments at most of these requested moves, seemingly including this one, is whether or not the person in question meets the exception in WP:NCPEER and the only way this can be decided is by discussion of each individual. Yes, in this case it looks like consensus is currently that they don't but that's no reason for a speedy close. Dpmuk (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
For the record Kitty's initial move was not a violation of any policy. It is not true that every last action must be discussed before it is done. WP:BRD, although not actual policy, is a good guidepost, she had no way of knowing at that time that there would be any objection to the move. However, I also must say I don't like what appears to be attempts by admins to stifle further discussion. If the move requests are bad-faith or very disruptive I could see it, but that does not appear to be the case here despite the accusations of such in the move discussions. There is disagreement, and I don't see why there is such a hurry to just shut down all conversation. If the conversation wandered off-topic, nudge it back in the right direction instead of basically telling everyone to shut up. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I would agree with Dpmuk's sentiments here. I hope my actions (as detailed above) were not in error - I was really just trying to tidy up what had become an intractably messy situation with the first move request. Once that was done, anyone was entitled to reopen the request to establish whether the particular topic could be deemed one of the exceptions permitted by WP:NCPEER, and that's what B2C did. I don't personally think David Gold is notable enough to warrant omitting the peerage title, but I do think the RM has the right to run its course.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Agree with the above. This has become quite a mess and Favonian's close made it worse. History tells us that closing a contentious discussion early always creates more drama not less, and this is no exception. I also think that BrownHairedGirl acted incorrectly in moving and closing the first discussion. The initial move was reverted; it was not appropriate to move it back again without consensus. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I wish I could say that I was surprised to see this thread being started, but sadly I'm not. There's been a lot of disruptive editing here, and this topic has been on the verge of ANI for a while.

If an article's creator moves it soon after creation, when nobody else has edited it, there is no need for a discussion.

A move back to its original name will inevitably be controversial, so should be proposed for discussion. Luce-marie (who has been engaging a lot of similar moves) tried to game the system by moving the article from what was then its default position, and proposing that a consensus be sought to move it back gain. That's gaming the system, by trying to establish L-M's preference as the basis.

The second RM request was made by B2C. I sought speedy closure of that RM, because the nomination made no attempt whatsoever to address the merits of the title of article: instead it was a set of generalised objections to to the naming convention, and I ponted out that the way to pursue such objections is to follow WP:MULTI and raise them at WT:TITLE or WT:NCPEER rather than running a campaign against the guidelines in half-a-dozen places simultaneously. Favonian accepted that argument, and closed the discussion.

The issue here is quite important. B2C is quite entitled to disagree with the naming convention, but the way to change it is by seeking a centralised discussion. Instead, B2C was back pursuing his old game of trying a war-of-attrition: running the same policy discussion in as multiple places, in order to hopefully establish precedents to by wearing out the editors who disagree with B2C, but unlike him spend most of their time creating content rather than running an article-naming campaign and

This is merely the latest example of an old problem: B2C repeatedly uses this war-of-attrition strategy in pursuit of his views on article naming. It's time to put a stop to it, and insist that B2C follows centralised discussions when he wants to challenge a convention.

There has been an ongoing problem with Lucy-marie (talk · contribs), who has engaged in several bouts of disruptive moves in recent months, and has rejected warnings. She seems to have stopped for now, so I don't see any need for action on that front .... but B2C's games should be stopped. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Amakuru, for the record, given the situation as created by BHG, I think what you did is fine, though I don't think BHG's revert was as justified as you seemed to think it was. But all that is water under the bridge, and already was when I started the new discussion to resolve this. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
B2C, the subsequent rationale you offered for your requested move was nothing to do with the article under discussion. It was a set of concerns about the naming convention, and you were making those points in the wrong place. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
No, it was not a set of concerns about the naming conventions. It was an argument in favor of the specific proposed move based on following the principle naming criteria at WP:TITLE as best as possible. But, as noted below, even if your characterization of the argument was correct, that's no excuse to close a proposal which you oppose. Others contributing often make better arguments - that's key to developing consensus via discussion, at least in discussions that are not prematurely closed. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually as I mention above I've started a relevant discussion at WT:NCP which seems a logical third choice.
I'd also disagree whether MULTI applies here. Although the discussions are all very similar the central point appears to be whether the exception applies and that has to be decided on a case by case basis. Dpmuk (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
B2C's r requested move rationale offered no reason specific to the article in question. It was a generalised objection to the naming convention, and those generalised objections should be discussed centrally.
Other similar RMs have offered a rationale specific to the article in question, and I have not sought the speedy closure of those ones, except where they have been preceded by the nominator moving the article away from a stable name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
BHG: you seem to have different understanding of WP:BOLD to me. The initial move by User:Kittybrewster was, of course, fine. The first revert, by User:Lucy-marie, was also fine. It is at that stage that discussion needs to occur. (And this is exactly what happened...) The fact that the article was only created shortly before the first move puts a different slant on this, but is ultimately irrelevant. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Martin, please check the wider history. I will collect more diffs later, but this came in the midst of a long series of RMs where Lucy-marie moved an article away from its stable title, using the edit summary "When was this discussed?" and then opened an RM demanding that a consensus be sought to move it back again: for example she moved Rita Donaghy, Baroness Donaghy away from the title at which the article was created 7 months previously. In this case we had slightly different situation: a newly-created article, which no other editor had edited. It seems to me that there is no substantive difference between 1) creating an article named X and promptly moving it to Y; and 2) creating the same content at Y. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll grant you there isn't much substantive difference between creating X and moving to Y v.s. just creating at Y if the article is moved a few minutes or at least within a few hours of creation. But once several days and about a dozen edits go by, which is what occurred here, there is a substantive difference. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
My understanding is in line with Martin's, and is the consensus view as far as I can tell. The initial move was fine, and so was the revert. The fact that the initial move was done by the article creator, soon after creation, is ultimately irrelevant per WP:OWN, and certainly did not make Lucy-marie's revert of it inappropriate. Anyone can try a bold move if they reasonably believe it to be uncontroversial - but once it's reverted, that's it... and discussion, preferably via WP:RM, is required, before anything else happens. That BHG acted to revert the revert, and end that discussion, especially with regard to an issue on which her position is anything but neutral, is completely out of line. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I disagree with BHG on several points, not the least of which is the accusation that I'm playing games.
  1. That the initial move was done by the article creator is irrelevant. See WP:OWN.
  2. I agree that User:Kittybrewster made the first move quite possibly without knowing it was potentially controversial - and by WP:AGF we must assume so despite her involvement in many of these disagreements. However, once it was reverted by User:Lucy-marie that should have made it clear to everyone (including BHG), that that initial move was controversial. As others have noted, this is classic BRD stuff. There was no justification to move it again, especially with discussion among everyone involved so far in progress.
  3. BHG is an admin with strong opinions about these peerage articles and so should not be using her admin authority in this area.
  4. The argument that the second discussion speedy closure was justified because the proposal argument was based on policy concerns is ludicrous twice over, and simply reveals BHG's bias in this area. First, arguments based on policy adherence are the best arguments (see WP:JDLI for the problem with the other kind of arguments). Second, no matter how poor an argument may be, that's no reason to close the proposal; it may be supported by much better arguments put forth by others, if the discussion is allowed to proceed.
--Born2cycle (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
B2C, you spend your tine playing games on article names. Waging wars-of-attrition against naming conventions is what you do all the time, trying to wear down the editors who actually create content
  1. A page moved promptly by its creator is substantially no different from one created at the new title, because in both cases, there is no stable title to revert to.
  2. If Lucy-marie disagrees with the title explicitly chosen for an article by its creator, then her move is inevitably controversial. She should have opened an RM from the existing title, but she didn't -- neither in this case nor in cases where the article had no other title, such as this one.moved
  3. I did not act as admin. I moved the page back, as any editor could have done, and recommended speedy closure. I did not close the discussion myself.
  4. Your rationale for he second RM was based on your outright rejection of a naming convention. You seem to think that it is appropriate to argue those general principles at multiple locations, but long-standing guidance at WP:MULTI says otherwise.
    If other editors want to propose a move based on issues related to that particular article, then they are of course free to open a new RM. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I shall not be commenting on the main purpose of this discussion as I do not believe that I would be able to add to the discussion beyond what has already been said as I agree broadly with the positions of Dpmuk, Beeblebrox and Martin. I do though have to take objection to the comments made by BHG accusing me of essentially bad faith editing by claiming there is a Problem with my editing. I have initiated two discussion on this issue one died a natural death and the second one became very nasty with very nasty comments from BHG directed towards myself. I believe that a wider issue is in need of discussion and that is the whole application of NC:PEER itself and if NC:PEER still commands consensus. I firmly believe that the BHG has acted highly inappropriate and is POV Pushing her desired outcomes on some of these discussions particularly this one. That is highly inappropriate and shows a lack of professionalism particularly for someone who has been given the privilege of holding adminship. The third way discussion which has already been started is in my opinion the best way to begin to attempt to sort out the NC:PEER mess which has developed. I though would like the sniping and nasty comments and threats of RFC/Us and removal of the right to move pages which have been made against me to stop as it is an inherent bias, and assumption of bad faith towards me by admins who are acting in a fashion which is unprofessional. Purely because there is a dislike of what i am doing on the grounds it goes against what they believe should be the way it should be and nothing else. It is in effedt an attempt to stifle opposition to thier held position.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)BHG, all the controversy surrounding this article title, as noted above, clearly existed prior to my involvement. Any expressions of opinion about how I spend my time on WP (anyone interested can read my user page) is pure ad hominem attack and is not relevant to this discussion.

You live in some kind of alternate universe where starting an RM discussion per WP:RM and as you suggested is "playing games" - but moving an article while productive discussion is in progress is not.

Yes, I consistently argue that all titles should adhere to the principle naming criteria put forth at WP:TITLE as well as is reasonably possible. Suggesting that doing so at the individual RM discussions is a violation of WP:MULTI is so "out there" I don't even know how to respond, except to say it's the only way I know to avoid WP:JDLI arguments. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

B2C, you know perfectly well that your main activity on wikipedia is trying to overturn naming conventions. That's not an attack; it's a statement of demonstrable fact, just as it's a statement of fact that my main activity is creating and editing article on British MPs, elections, and constituencies.
What you've done in this case is to tag on to the disruptive antics of Lucy-marie, and try your usual game of arguing against existence of the naming convention at multiple locations. That's a clear violation of WP:MULTI, and while I'm not surprised that you don't know how to respond, I do know that won't stop you from replying frequently, at great length, just as you do at other discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
My main activity on WP is promoting as much adherence as is reasonably possible to the general naming criteria put forth at WP:TITLE. That sometimes includes supporting the modification of some specific guidelines, and sometimes in some certain cases promoting the ignoring of certain guidelines that need modification to indicate a title that is in better compliance with WP:TITLE for that particular article, but mostly it involves taking one position or another (whichever aligns better with WP:TITLE) at WP:RM discussions. Again, I'm quite clear about this on my user page. --Born2cycle (