Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive671

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

Noticeboard archives


Christina Aguilera, Super Bowl XLV and The Star-Spangled Banner[edit]


There has been some edit-warring going on in these three articles, but since the issue is about Wikipedia and since there is a possible hoax, I thought I'd better bring it here. The text in Christina Aguilera currently says Afterwards, the mistake was linked to a vandalized edit on the Wikipedia article for 'The Star-Spangled Banner'. The reference is to the Daily Mail article. So - is this a hoax? Undue weight? Are we covering up? StAnselm (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

(1) I believe The Daily Mail is wrong; the vandalism occurred several minutes after Aguilera's words. (2) Since when did The Daily Mail become a reliable source? NW (Talk) 21:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
(e/c, but I agree with NW anyway) Err... here's the version of the anthem on 4 Feb 2011, which is correct AFAICT, and certainly doesn't have the Aguilera mistake. By the next edit, she has already made the mistake and the article is edited thereafter to note this. Looking at the edit history of the article thereafter, fun and games then begin. So, it's not Wikipedia's fault; the fact that a Wikipedia article was vandalised afterwards in line with her mistake is hardly relevant and I can't see why it would be suitable for inclusion in any article. BencherliteTalk 21:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
The daily mail is not a reliable source so who cares?©Geni 21:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Would it be a violation of Crystal Ball rules to state that (1) she's not likely to be asked back next year; (2) they are not likely to produce a hit single of her recording; and (3) they won't need to anyway, as it will be all over youtube? However, this could be has already been added to the "Roseanne list", i.e. the list of mangled performances by public figures: Performances and adaptations of The Star-Spangled Banner. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This may be relevant in Christina Aguilera, provided its not given undue weight. I doubt it deserves more than a line in Super Bowl XLV, acknowledging that she was the singer & made a mistake. It's totally irrelevant recentism to add this to The Star-Spangled Banner. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
That's why there's a separate article on good and bad performances of the Anthem. Here's the actual Daily Mail article to which the Guardian article refers.[1] Looks like they were confused about the timestamps. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, somehow my comment managed to not edit-conflict with yours. Was meant to be a reply to the OP, not you. Sorry for the confusion! — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
The song's talk page says that someone has notified the Daily Mail about their error. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Hahaha, the daily mail made an error!? Perish the thought. Protonk (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Impossible! That would be as likely as the National Enquirer denying that extraterrestrials in UFOs had mated with Britney Spears. Face-wink.svg -- Brangifer (talk) 03:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
In her own apology she says, "I got so caught up in the moment of the song that I lost my place." She doesn't say, "I got the words wrong because I looked it up on Wikipedia." --B (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Which shows the trap anyone (even a semi-respected newspaper) can get into when they engage in "original research". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Um, the Mail isn't "semi-respected"... ;) GiantSnowman 20:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I've always considered the Daily Mail a reliable source: if they say something, you can rely on it being wrong. ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
There were some clips on TV today of Aguilera singing the song, in that same style, and without mistakes, over a period of years starting at age 11. She didn't use wikipedia as a source, she simply messed it up somehow, on this occasion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Continued disruptive editor at Chicago[edit]

Resolved: Watching. m.o.p 07:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Could someone please handle (talk · contribs)? I reported this incident recently at ANI but no intervention was made and the user is still continuing to go against consensus. The archive is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive669#Disruptive editor at Chicago. Elockid (Talk) 04:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I second that emotion. The user won't talk, he just keeps posting the same unsourced factoid. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I've left a message on the user's talk page. I've explained that discussion is their best friend. Tiderolls 05:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
One more strike and they're out. I'll keep an eye out. m.o.p 07:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Edited again. Same change. →GƒoleyFour← 03:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


VJ-Yugo (talk · contribs) POV-pushing on 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, edit-warring to deny the result was a success for NATO - see multiple changes in edit history. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

And he's continuing to edit-war, see [2] - he's been edit-warring on that article for over a week now. I've given him a 3RR warning now, in addition to the warnings he's already had, but I think he needs more than that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
He also appears to be edit-warring on other Balkans articles, like Battle of Košare. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I came to this thread via your notice on VJ-Yugo's talk page, which I was monitoring because I'd issued them with formal notification of WP:ARBMAC yesterday as a result of concerns raised by another editor at WT:MILHIST. Anyhow, I've blocked VJ-Yugo for 48 hours and recorded the sanction at ARBMAC; further disruption will doubtless result in longer blocks. EyeSerenetalk 10:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll keep my eyes peeled too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

AnomieBot requesting assistance[edit]

Please see this. Seems Anomie has built in a notice system when the bot runs into problems.....or it has become aware! Either way, please fix. - NeutralhomerTalk • 02:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Bot has clearly developed power of thought, and so ought to be blocked immediately. In the meantime, I think I've fixed the problem it didn't like, but time will tell... BencherliteTalk 02:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, self thinking bots should be bloc....END TRANSMISSION. - NeutralhomerTalk • 02:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Bad News, Skynet AnomieBot seems to have terminated User:John Connor No edits since 2006!!!! commence panic....... NOW The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The Machines The Bots also took out User:Neo way back in 2007 The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The Way I see it Resistance is futile I volunteer to be the first to be assimilated.... The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. End of line. -FASTILY (TALK) 08:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The only winning move is not to play. - Burpelson AFB 14:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Potential Canvassing for an AfD[edit]

Nothing for admins to do here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Both of these concerns are based around the Article for Deletion discussion taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battles in Vermont. The first is more straightforward; it's based off of this edit by User:Dthomsen8. While I do want to assume good faith, I'm struggling to in this case. If Colonel Warden had been a prominent editor at Wikiproject Vermont, for example, this would have been a different case, but I believe this request was made based solely off the fact the Colonel Warden tends to very often vote keep on articles for deletion (often even voting speedy keep on controversial ones). I'm always reluctant to accuse an editor of something like this, and I'm sure Dthomsen8 is otherwise a productive editor, but I worry that if I don't bring this up it will be overlooked and possibly repeated in the future.

The second issue is a bit more complicated, concerning the Article Rescue Squadron. I want to start off with a disclaimer: in no way do I oppose the goals or even many of the deeds of this group. There's few things more helpful than cleaning up a weak article, and so I commend any editors who have used the group effectively. However, I've noticed a disturbing trend of the rescue tag being used, not to bring quality edits to the article, but simply as a way of attracting likely keep votes. I worry that such is the case with this AfD. At 04:14, 7 February 2011, the rescue tag was added to the Battles in Vermont article. After this point, there were one or more editors who are active editors in the ARS (I'm reluctant to include names in this case, since the situation is not 100% clear and I want to assume good faith) voted Keep in the discussion, without making any cleanup edits in the article itself. Ironically, the only editor to actually make a constructive edit to the article before their vote was Colonel Warden, although this does mean the first issue should be ignored. I do worry that both of these issues have the potential to unjustly affect the discussion, so I wanted to bring it to the attention of administrators.

As a final note, I will certainly be notifying Dthomsen8 of this ANI as per the rules. However, I'm unsure if there's anyone I should or must notify in regards to the second issue (the ARS talk page itself did not seem like a fitting place) so I would appreciate any administrator input. Thanks in advance.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Eh, seems innocuous enough to me. While the Colonel certainly opines to keep often enough, he also does a fair amount of work referencing and expanding articles, and this topic seems like something that has the potential to be rescued. NW (Talk) 03:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
    • FWIW, I saw this AN/I section, and went to the AfD to give an opinion. If the intent of the AN/I notice was to discourage positive !votes, it seems to have counter-fired, as canvassing generally does. I never bother looking at the ARS page, and they send me no notices, but I always look here, to see what justified or unjustified complaints there may be about various things. . If there is canvassing abuse at AfD , there isn't a single closing admin I know of who does not take the possibility into account. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC) .
  • Is this implying that I'm attempting to canvas here? If so, I resent that and find the accusation absurd. If not, then please ignore that resentment.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • As I have been the target of DGG's bad faith accusations and such in the past, particularly at DRV... accusations of collusion with others, threats to block, is safe to say that, yes, he was accusing you of canvassing via ANI. Tarc 14:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to assume good faith hope this isn't true. I'm certainly not going to defend this action before actually being accused of anything.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

First "straightforward" case is clear indeed as "not CANVASS". Discussion about the ARS is, however, malformed for this board. Collect 14:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering why it clearly isn't. I've read through WP: CANVASS multiple times, and can't see how the first case fit any of the reasons one would likely notify an editor of a discussion.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree that this does not look like canvassing, so I see no need for action here.
I'm no fan of the way that the ARS often functions as a canvassing vehicle, but so far that does not seem to have happened in this case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
The ARS issue is certainly less clear and potentially not an issue. But my comment above was referring to the User talk page canvassing issue I mentioned in the first paragraph.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Note I also think it's important to note that, while the rescue tag's addition was mentioned in the AfD, it's mention on the AfD discussion page occurred long after it was added. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but I think it's important to note that some of the votes that look like they were added before the rescue tag were actually added after.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Actually, I added a note on the AfD page about the rescue tag with this diff, within the same minute that the rescue tag was placed on the article. The tag that was added "long after" is, I assume, this one, which was added by somebody else. But the article was in fact promptly tagged in the AfD that it had been tagged by ARS, just wanted to clear that up. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Oh, yep, you're right, I saw the lower tag and assumed that was the only one (after all, why would someone mention it twice?) My bad, I apologize, thanks for correcting me.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Asking one person who commonly works on articles in trouble, isn't canvassing. Once it was tagged for the rescue squadron, that editor would've found his way there anyway. Assume good faith. Dream Focus 19:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Please look at User talk:Colonel Warden#AfD for Battles in Vermont to see how Colonel Warden did just what I hoped he would do, he contributed information to the article, with an inline citation. I invited him to look at the article because he often contributes to military history articles. I see that he voted in the AfD discussion, but I was not canvassing for a vote, I was seeking improvement to the article text. Perhaps I should have worded my invitation differently, and I will be more cautious in the future. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • this seems to be largely innocuous. "Canvassing" a party of one is hardly cause for concern even if the message were to be slanted and the recipient especially prone to acting a certain way in response to such a message. Neither of those two conditions hold completely here. Protonk (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think there is anything special about this instance, and given what we normally accept about the use of the rescue tags it shouldn't be considered canvassing. However, I think it points to a much bigger issue involving the ARS and how it functions. They only attempt to "rescue" articles that are actively being discussed at AfD, and this means tagging those entries. This also means that they de facto canvass the whole ARS about every AfD discussion that involves an article for rescue. I think the ARS would do much better if they tried to tag and rescue articles, before they go to AfD. What would the community say if someone started the Article Scrapping Squadron, which tags every entry at AfD that members think should go to the junk heap, thereby brining an army of deletionists to the party? Whether one is an inclusionist, deletionist or none of the above, the best time to help entries meet our standards is before the AfD drama fest.Griswaldo (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the ARS (as well AFD, which is "articles for deletion", not "articles for keeping") by doing that? Moreover, isn't that also what we have cleanup tags for (which I know is another argument altogether but is still relevant here just to mention)? –MuZemike 23:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
My point is that they should be "rescuing" articles from their crappy states rather than rescuing crap from getting flushed. Many articles sit with those tags for years. No one does anything to fix them. Then someone notices the article, has a look at what can be done, deems it unsalvageable and puts it up to AfD. The ARS then shows up to oppose what seems to me to be a good faith attempt to help cleanup the encyclopedia. My question is, where were they for the years when this article sat around Wikipedia making the encyclopedia look worse? It's almost like they are hoarders of content. Honestly I think its a pretty good metaphor. They are hard at work to make sure you don't throw their stuff out, but otherwise who cares what state their house is in. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
sure they should work on improving articles all the time, and so should we all--including the people who nominate them for deletion. I regard it as a very impressive argument for deletion if sometimes makes it evident that they have tried to improve an article, found it impossible, and come to AfD as the only remaining recourse. The people at ARS are divided in two groups: the few, like Col.W, who improve articles, and the others, who do very little of anything about it. It's a problem at many workgroups. It's a problem with Wikipedians in general. I've never figured out why this group arouses such anger among anyone--they're just not very effective. And I point out that we decided at its talk p. about 6 months ago to rename it Articles for Discussion, just like the other XfD processes, but the difficulty of changing some very complicated templates has kept anyone from implementing it. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Speaking just for myself, as a member of ARS I do try to improve articles nominated for deletion, but sometimes I just comment, and in a few instances I agree that deletion is the right result. In some cases, I look at the article and the discussion, and do nothing at all. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
We are all hoarders of content in some respect, especially those of us that create new articles. We are finding a home for a collection of ideas or facts which didn't exist before. That term shouldn't be pejorative at all. I also think we need to shitcan this notion that some content is making the encyclopedia "look bad". It either meets the guidelines and policies for inclusion or it doesn't. Those guidelines weren't created (for the most part) with the intent of making WP look good or bad. They were created in order to provide a baseline above which we should expect an article could be written which is built around reliable sources, factually neutral and not editor contrived. If ARS wants to improve articles at the margin that is their business and how they determine what the margin is is also their business. The only serious problem with the ARS project is when it strays away from article improvement and becomes a tacit coordination mechanism for people who don't like the deletion process to throw a wrench in it. That didn't appear to happen here. Anything else that goes on under the umbrella of a particular wikiproject is frankly none of your business unless you want to help them do their job. Protonk (talk) 04:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Protonk, call it what you want, but having poor quality entries on possibly non-notable subjects lingering around the encyclopedia is bad for the project. I didn't actually mean to stress appearances as much as I might have (it just worked with the hoarder metaphor) but I do think they matter. As a reference work we need not only to do our best to inform our readers, but we need to remain credible, and that is an image problem whether you like it or not. That said we are not all hoarders of content. Some editors are purgers and most are neither. I agree with you regarding what the main problem with ARS is, btw. I think the problem is exacerbated by the manner in which they normally function however, and that was my point. Brownhaired girl is right though, this is not the right forum so I will cease discussing the matter further. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Time to close. This discussion seems to have meandered off into general observations about the ARS, which don't belong here. Since there is clearly no appetite for taking any action on the original complaint, it's time to close this thread. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Notices on here don't last long anyway; it would be preemptive to prevent potential commenters on weighing in just because some are possibly going off topic.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

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

User:Eliko at WP:TFD[edit]

Resolved: Template deleted. User notified about AE. Nightw 15:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm having a bit of trouble with one user Eliko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) in regards to a template's deletion proposal. The issue has been going on for months, and I'd like to be rid of it.

I'll be as brief as possible with the background. Last year, the editor in question made several attempts to add what I considered personal analysis to a template that, at the time, had already been orphaned and made obsolete. An agreement had already been made on the talk page to delete it. After twice reverting Eliko myself, another attempt was made. I decided to ignore it, and immediately nominated it for deletion instead, since its content had already been moved to articlespace, two days before Eliko started editing.

The closing administrator JPG-GR (talk · contribs) ruled for a "delete", but later changed the decision to "merge" after Eliko requested this from the admin on his talk page, claiming that some content (meaning his later edits, which I had not reverted on principle) had not been merged. The admin listed the template in the holding cell and requested that Eliko notify him when he had completed the merge. I made no attempt to protest (I probably should have), but had no intention of letting his edits be pushed through, since there was no consensus for them in the first place.

Two months later, however, no attempt at "merging" had been made, so I relisted the template for deletion. I was content to let that discussion play out, hoping for a wider response from regulars about what protocol would normally call for, but Eliko has now twice removed my {{TfD}} tag on the template whilst discussion is still ongoing.

The target article is substantially different now. Meanwhile, I'm confident that none of the regulars on WP:TFD will touch that debate, so unless an administrator steps in the template is set to rot in the holding cell forever. Nightw 08:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Eliko's response:

  1. As opposed to User:Nightw's claim, no "agreemnet" has ever been reached to delete the template. On the contrary, all other users made it clear that the deletion can be carried out - only "if there is no need anymore to synchronize content on both SoP and the Foreign relations articles".
  2. The discussion ended up with the resolution: "The result of the discussion was merge".
  3. The closing adminisrator crossed off the word "deletion", because two editors (User:Eliko and User:Alinor) supported the merge, against one editor only (User:Nightw) who supported the deletion.
  4. The administrator has unconditionally requested to fulfill the final decision - i.e. to merge the article - before any admin can (conditionally) delete it. Two users (User:Alinor and User:Eliko) have been trying to fulfill this final decision - and to merge the article, however, unfortunately, the contents of the template have not been merged yet, because somebody has been trying (by violating the 3 Revert Rule) to prevent this merge, and has also been trying to delete the whole template before the final decision is fulfilled.
  5. For the closing adminisrator's final decision to be fufilled, I simply propose to undo the revert - which violated the 3 Revert Rule - and which unilaterally undid the majority's version that had merged the template into the other article.
  6. Although the target article is substantially different now, the merge is still relevant, because it relates to preferring more updated documents of 2007 and of 2010, to some outdated documents of 1986 and of 1998.

Eliko (talk) 10:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't want this to degrade into another back-and-forth, but I will ask that you refrain from claiming to know the reasoning of another other editor. I'd expect that JPG-GR would use far better logic in his reversal than what you claim, as Wikipedia is not a democracy. I'll let him speak for himself. And while I have been (regretably) guilty of reverting 3RR on that particular article in the past, I have not been so in this instance. The discussion was closed on 17 December, and no attempt to merge has been made since. Please, correct me if I'm wrong, or retract the accusation. Nightw 11:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, but its resolutions are reached by concensus. Second, when I talked about "somebody who has been trying (by violating the 3 Revert Rule) to prevent the merge", I didn't mention any particulat name, so I don't have to retract any accusation. Anyways, that revert - which violated the 3 Revert Rule - really did unilaterally undo the majority's version that had merged the template into the other article, so I still propose to fulfill the closing administrator's resolution by simply undoing the revert - which violated the 3 Revert Rule - and which unilaterally undid the majority's version that had merged the template into the other article. Eliko (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

(non-admin) I've reverted the removal of the TfD tag as these should not be removed while the discussion is in progress. I've also dropped the user a note that is no such thing as a "final decision", that WP:Consensus can change and that in this instance the re-nomination is reasonable as a new reason is given - namely the merge no longer makes sense. No comment on the wider issues. Dpmuk (talk) 10:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Nightw 11:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure you don't know what you're talking about, because the situation is the other way around! As opposed to what you've claimed, the merge does make sense and is still relevant, because it relates to preferring more updated documents of 2007 and of 2010, to some outdated documents of 1986 and of 1998, so as I've stated, the situation is the other way around. Anyways, I'm not going to remove the {{Tfd}}, because two editors, namely User:Nightw and User:Dpmuk, think that the re-nomination is reasonable. Eliko (talk) 11:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Continuing this bit of the discussion on User talk:Eliko. Dpmuk 13:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
This whole situation is complicated hugely by attribution requirements, see my comments on the TfD for more on this, but essentially I'm no longer sure we can delete the template anyway. Dpmuk 13:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Can another person take a look at this[edit]

Please could another person take a look at this please. User:Eliko seems insistent on keeping two versions of this article going, one in the template, one on the actual article - more discussion is on the users talk page. I've tried discussing things with them but seem to have hit a brick wall. Could someone else try? Dpmuk (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. We desperately need some further imput here. Nightw 02:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
It's now gone beyond my patience. He's decided to edit the thing now. He won't stick to WP:BRD, and frankly, in my view, he's being deliberately disruptive. I need an administrator to step in, and sort this out... Any takers? Nightw 11:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Please don't mislead the admins, by mentioning WP:BRD. No revert has been made. I've just fixed undisputedly obvious mistakes. Do you really want this template to contain undisputedly obvious mistakes (like outdated figures) that have already been fixed in the article? Eliko (talk) 11:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
What do you call this and this? You've been reverted twice by two different users, and you've just repeated the same edits after you've been asked to stop. I don't care what your template contains. It'll be deleted. Nightw 12:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Again you mislead the admins, because your two diffs involve three different users (me you and Dpmuk), each of which had reverted once only, so how does all of that relate to WP:BRD? My edits are not the same edits, although both of them fix undisputedly obvious errors. Any deletion will be made only after a consensus is reached. Eliko (talk) 12:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

With the template deleted, this is pretty much done and dusted for me. Dougweller has warned the editor in question about relevant Arbcom sanctions, so there's nothing much else that needs to be addressed as far as I'm concerned. Many thanks to everybody for their assistance. Nightw 15:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Not actually a warning, it says "This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions." It's a notification. Dougweller (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

User Kanatipo, bad faith, again.[edit]

Kanatipo was blocked for 24 hours by uninvolved admin, Moonriddengirl, for personal attacks and not assuming good faith including within the report. Unfortunately, it seems that nothing will be different as his first action, upon leaving the block, was a violation of WP:AGF, whereas he failed to assume good faith on the part of admin, WillBeback here. It seems a progressively harsher block may be in order, or perhaps a topic ban from abortion related topics. WMO 02:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You aren't very funny, wmo. --Kenatipo speak! 02:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I can see where that isn't AGF, but it isn't a personal attack. Kenatipo should be advised that sarcastic language probably isn't the best way to go when it comes to being AGF. - NeutralhomerTalk • 02:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's an amusing example of how wmo shows good faith (from a WQA against me):

I asked him whether he could remove my postings from his user page, he answered sarcastically. I, obviously, would like them to be removed.

WikiManOne 18:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Non-issue. It is up to each individual whether or not to retain postings on their talk pages. I don't see any sarcasm in his reply to you. My suggestion would be, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. BTW, you didn't inform Kenatipo about the discussion here.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 19:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Obviously, coming from you who agrees with him on various issues, you would try to defend him. Sorry, I did forget to notify him, thank you for going ahead and doing so. The posts in question were not posted on his talk page, they were posted on other pages and were the "Quote" was quickly corrected, it is posted there deceptively and in an attempt to undermine my editing. Obviously, you would like me to "get out" because I provide a necessary check to activist editing/pov which you seem to support. WikiManOne 20:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, let's get something straight right off the bat. I don't "support" anyone on various issues, nor am I "defending" anyone. Now, what I see is you gettiing bent out of shape because your move proposal on Talk:Pro-life is being vigorously debated (and as I see it, will probably not pass), and rather than going on with life, you would rather continue instead to badger someone who doesn't have the same views that you do. I suggested that you drop the issue as there are more important things in Wiki-life to worry about. An admin reversed your earlier actions of WP:NOTAVOTE, so that right there speaks volumes about your particular behavior in this case.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 21:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC) --Kenatipo speak! 03:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
My advice is to just back down. Stop trying to find a reason to block him again. That's rarely a productive enterprise. --Jayron32 03:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Jayron, I have 2 stupid questions: 1) how am I supposed to know that you are an admin, and 2) does your comment here as an admin effectively end this discussion? Thanks. --Kenatipo speak! 05:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
If you have pop-ups enabled, simply hover over his name and it will tell you the permissions of a specific editor. It does say "sysop" for Jayron, so he is indeed an admin. I also have added js code that highlights the names of any admin so I can easily pick them out in my list of changes.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 05:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
ArcAngel, my popups say User:Jayron32 and User talk:Jayron32 when I hover. That's all. --Kenatipo speak! 17:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
In this specific case, WTH does it matter if the person is an admin or not? Good, wise, sage advice should be heeded no matter the role of the person who provides it! Dropping the WP:SARCASM, and learning to WP:DGAF will go a long way in helping you go forward as an editor 'round here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
bwilkins, my second question to Jayron was 2) does your comment here as an admin effectively end this discussion? --Kenatipo speak! 17:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The contributor seems to have dialed it back considerably since before his block, and I think that the most productive approach at this point is to encourage him to dial it back more. I've left him a note at his talk page about interacting with others. It's nowhere near as succinct as your note, BWilkins, which conveys more or less the same idea with far less bandwidth. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: I strongly suggest that both editors drop their sticks and disengage from each other. The previous ANI thread bordered on significant WP:ABF. Just don't interact with each other and your Wikipedia experience will be better. Hasteur (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


This IP is vandalizing several articles as their history shows. It would probably be wise to simply block this IP for a period of time. Arzel (talk) 04:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Arzel. I think you should take this to the vandalism noticeboard. There's a link at the top of this page, under "Are you in the right place?" --Kenatipo speak! 04:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Or don't bother, the edits appear to be stale. I would decline a block unless they start back up again. Protonk (talk) 05:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Stale? February 9 is TODAY! --Kenatipo speak! 05:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh! Begging your pardon, Mr. Administrator Protonk, sir. (I didn't know you were an admin either.) Are edits from today stale? --Kenatipo speak! 05:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
(Kenatipo - you might wish to stop making comments when you don't actually know the correct answers) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
IP edits are under a narrower time frame than those of registered users. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Bugs. You are CIVIL and you AGF. I didn't know "stale" was a term of art here. --Kenatipo speak! 17:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
No reason to get snotty about it. The last edit from that IP address was 5 hours ago. Blocking that address for vandalism while there is no activity is pretty pointless. Protonk (talk) 07:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I was not being snotty. I was trying to seem obsequious. --Kenatipo speak! 17:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

() By stale it means that the IP hasn't edited in hours (2 hours before your report and about 5 hours ago at this point). However, considering that the IP appears static as it was warned for vandalism on the same article over a week ago, I've given them one fresh final warning.  7  07:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Comcast addresses are actually one of the most static ISPs out there and hardly reassign. They're basically accounts. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 14:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Why hasn't/can't Template:Palestine foreign relations be deleted?[edit]

An issue with an editor involved in this is being discussed above - WP:ANI#User:Eliko at WP:TFD - but I want to raise the wider issue. This template is basically an article within a template. It was meant to be deleted after any relevant material was merged, see [3] (the closing Admin has been contacted but hasn't replied. The current TfD discussion is a bit of a mess [4] and I am not happy with the removal of the TfD template. It's suggested that we can't delete this because of attribution but I'm not all convinced that is a problem.

This also seems to fall in the area covered by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. Dougweller (talk) 08:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I have been asked on my talk page to take a look at this and recommend that this ANI thread be closed. The matter of the deletion of the template is the subject of an ongoing deletion discussion and should be discussed (only) there. Should any misconduct issues arise out of that MFD, they can be raised at WP:AE or another appropriate forum. I don't think that opening a third discussion at ANI is likely to help much.  Sandstein  11:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I was going to mark this resolved but realised there is a technical issue here. One argument is that we cannot delete this (not should not) because attributions would/have be/been lost during any merge. It's been suggested that if the decision is to delete, that it be blanked and fully protected to preserve the history. This question was one of the reasons I started this thread. Dougweller (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
If we have to do one or the other the second sounds better to me. There are many references in the template that should prove useful for anyone writing on the subject.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to keep this thread open if only to consider the attribution issue. I made the statement at TfD that I wasn't sure that deletion was possible but I'm still reasonably new to areas like this so would like to elicit more opinions and this thread seems the most likely way to do it. Even if we limit this thread to that issue I think it's worth keeping open as essentially it's a different issue to the TfD. Dpmuk (talk) 12:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Seeing as there are only a few editors of the page it should be fine to make an edit summary of "content merged from Template:Palestine foreign relations, attributed to... XXXXX" on the page the content was merged to and delete the template. --Errant (chat!) 12:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
This essay has a useful explanation --Errant (chat!) 12:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Ahh, wasn't aware of that as Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#List of authors suggests that's only acceptable if there's only a single author. That may well need updating then. In which case I'm fine with deletion and an appropiate null edit. Dpmuk (talk) 12:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I can help with some of the confusion here? It is a giant mess, and I know I'm quite involved, but if there are any questions I can clear up, just give me (or the author) a buzz. I did the merge from the template to the article space in this edit, but it was copy-paste... Sorry... Nightw 12:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
No, you have never done the merge, and the version you're talking about is a very old version of November, whereas the original resolution to merge is of December, and the discussion proves that this resolution refers to some more updated documents, which can be well noticed in the right side (line 517) of this diff (between the article and the template). Eliko (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Why was anything being added to a template that was meant to be deleted after a merge? Dougweller (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
1. The template had contained undisputedly obvious errors (like outdated figures etc.) that have already undisputedly been fixed in the article into which the template should be merged, whereas what was added to the template - was taken from the very updated undisputable figures in the article into which the template should be merged, so no damage was brought about by having fixed those errors.
2. Most important: thanks to having fixed those undisputedly obvious errors in the template, it's now much easier to notice what additions should be merged into the article - according the original resolution, as can be well noticed in the right side (line 517) of this diff (between the article and the template).
Eliko (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
It's now been deleted, and I copied the contribution list to the talkpage of the FRotPNA article for attribution of any merged content. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
And I've now added a null edit to the article saying that attribution is on the talk page just to make it even clearer. Dpmuk (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks everybody for all your help with this. And sorry about the mess... If there's anything else I can help with, just let me know. Nightw 15:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing Vandalism of "Vito Roberto Palazzolo"[edit]

For the past two years this article has been repeatedly vandalized by at least one user (fircks) and two IPs. Every time the vandal does the same thing - just adds comments to the wiki article voicing his opinion that the wiki article is biased/untrue/should be removed. You can see two examples at - here and here. I have posted about this to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/fircks and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Quaber (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Block evading SPA on Japanese related articles[edit] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is a disruptive nationalist SPA that removes sourced material, maintenance templates, user comments on talk pages and more from a handful of Japanese political/historical articles. The IP was blocked 31 hours for this today, but the user has since returned as User:Sinehannitikyokugaijin, User:Sinehannitikyokuugaijin, and now The articles in question are:

I also received this ideological statement on my talk page, clearly showing that the editor is editing from a POV-perspective not compatible with Wikipedia. I have RPP'd the articles in question, but I would like to know if there are other possibilities, perhaps a rangeblock or something similar that would be more convenient? --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Just as a little point of note, these usernames translate roughly to "Die, anti-Japanese right-wing foreigner". So there's a username violation here as well. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Block review[edit]

I have a feeling I'm going get yelled at by one or both of the parties I have just blocked despite the fact that their edit warring seems quite obvious to me, so I am asking for feedback on it preemptively. I blocked both users, one an admin who I have recently had some discussion but no direct conflict with (read: I spoke with them at length about a related matter which I do not have any actual involvement in, administrative or otherwise). In my judgement they both obviously edit warred, and they both should have already known better as they have been here for years. (In both cases longer than myself) I therefore blocked them both for 31 hours for clear violation of WP:EDITWAR. Fire away. Beeblebrox (talk) 10:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Dbachman did not violate 3RR on that article. A month's block is outrageous. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Pieter, the block for both is only 31 hours. - NeutralhomerTalk • 11:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I've reversed the Dbachmann blocks, which I find hard to justify; only 2/3 reverts this month does not equal blockable edit-warring for a contributors with such long service, though it was going on across several pages I admit. The last edit-warring activity was last night. I agree that laying down the rules is necessary when things begin to look like they may get out of hand, but that is different from creating a fear that one cannot edit in safety (which is what such blocks can do). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the unblock. This was not a good way to deal with it. I am however pleased that Beeblebrox brought this here as I was going to bring it here until I found he'd done it already. Dougweller (talk) 12:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I will not comment on the content issue, see my edits to Beeblebrox' talkpage for that.

I was hoping ANI would sort this out on its own, and Deacon's unblocking me on his own accord seems to vindicate this hopee. I commend Deacon of Pndapetzim for this, as he and myself have a history of unfriendly clashes, so it is particularly satisfying to be unblocked by an admin who as an editor is in frequent dispute with me. I will view DoP with more respect in the future, as this shows a true capacity of looking at the issue, not the editor, which is so important for the project and at the same time so rare.

I have been out of touch with the development of the admin community over the past few years (I think I followed RfA during 2005-2007 or so, but I have no idea how RfA has been working out over recent years. So I was a little disturbed to see an admin jump out of the woodwork and issue blocks for non-violation of 3RR without prior warning.

So if this unblocking is going to stand, my faith in the principle of admins watching admins will be somewhat restored. I still feel uncomfortable going around with such a recent block log, so I would greatly appreciate if Beeblebrox would make an effort to have this incidence cleaned from my block log. --dab (𒁳) 12:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I have posted what would have been my unblock request here, and I'm not happy about having a block on what was previously a six-year completely clean sheet either. As dab, so far as I can see, seems to be completely unrepentant, I would welcome advice as to how to deal with this better another time, if he starts this up all over again. Respectful thanks, Jheald (talk) 13:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • An edit war over a redirect? Sheesh. It sure looks to me like both reverted 3 times (technically not in 24 hours, but they should have known better anyway). Since nobody else was trying to edit that redirect, though, the disruption to other editors was probably minimal, and on that basis I'd have gone with page protection and trouting rather than blocks. Can both stop fighting and talk things out? If not, please apply 48h page protection (not to be edited through). More blocks will cause more drama and I doubt anyone really cares if that redirect points to the Wrong Version for a couple days. (talk) 13:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
It's not really about the redirect. It's actually about different views of the scope of the Yahweh article (see what would have been my unblock request, linked above). The redirect was just a minor collateral bit of the picture. Jheald (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I should have been more explicit in explaining some of the background here. Dbachmann has been engaging in a prolonged conflict in this area. He has twice moved a related article without consensus and twice been strongly, nearly unanimously opposed and his moves reversed. He has claimed that this is in the name of administrative enforcement of WP:CFORK. This is a continuation of that ongoing "enforcement action" which in reality is just a content dispute. Nobody commenting here has explained to me why this wasn't edit warring. Not surprising since it obviously was. It seems more like everyone is upset that I blocked two users who have been here a long time, one of them an administrator. So, we grant them a free pass for edit warring because of the length of their experience here? As I said last week when Dbachmann was move-warring in this same arena, this sort of thing is exactly what people are talking about when they say admins are above the law and get treated differently. An admin and another very experienced user should know better than a newbie not to edit war. In fact Dbachmann has been blocked for it before. In short, I stand behind these blocks, I object to them being so swiftly overturned when discussion here had barely begun, and I would like to hear some reason besides "they've been here a long time" that explains why this childish warring should be ignored yet again. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Beeb, I don't think anyone has said "ignore", so that's a false dichotomy. The general principle is to look for the path of least drama. Edit warring is disruptive, especially if lots of editors are involved, if lots of angst is involved (e.g. the conflict is over a contentious BLP or other contemporary battleground topic where outside agendas are involved), the complexity of the conflicting edits (higher cognitive load = more stress). Blocks on the other hand bring drama of their own, in stirring up factionalism among editors, and contributing to sometimes long-lasting resentment and burnout from the blockees, who (in the case of editors who are usually sensible) are probably already pretty stressed to be editing this stupidly in the first place. It's best to all weigh these issues against each other and look ahead to the likely outcome when figuring out what to do. Lesser measures in this case might have included protecting that redirect (nobody else was trying to edit it anyway), yelling and/or sweet-talking the participants on their talk pages, opening an ANI thread and getting wider consensus before taking drastic action, or any combination of those. Try to the extent possible to be a mediator and not just a rule enforcer. (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
As I have explained twice now, I already tried that at length with dab. He steadfastly refused to acknowledge his poor judgement and continued to engage in "warring" actions, despite having had those actions repeatedly overturned by overwhelming consensus.Protection doesn't work with dab either, he had no qualms about move warring on an article that was move protected. More than sufficient warning has been given this user, by myself, by discussions on talk pages, and by previous ANI threads. How long should we turn a blind eye to this and allow it to be explained away when we would certainly have blocked less experineced users long ago? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I remember the incident with the move protection and obviously if dab had repeated something that stupid, it would have been a pretty major escalation. But that's not what happened. The discussion at Talk:Yahweh is actually mostly pretty lame, and the flak Dab got here at ANI was mostly about his improper procedure (the move through protection) rather than about where he fit into the content dispute. Maybe an RFC about the content question can help. (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
It's also pretty clear from his comments that Deacon, the admin who summarily undid the blocks, is involved in this area also and personally involved with dab. I feel like I strayed into a walled garden and the folks inside the walls are suggesting that I should mind my own business unless I want to join in the actual dispute. This rather ignores the long-accepted position that in edit wars, move wars, wheel wars, etc, there is no right, anyone who participates is wrong by default, even if they are technically correct with regard to the actual content. As I see it that, and not what the name of the article should be or where a redirect should point, is the crux of this issue. From his block log, it looks like dab has been repeatedly blocked and someone always comes along and reverses it. I would suggest that it is the admin corps itself that has failed here. We can hardly expect dab to respect the rules if he is actually encouraged to not in this manner. It is clear to me now that the wagons were already circled around him and there is apparently nothing he can do that won't be explained away by his defenders as not being a big deal, even if it demonstrably part of a pattern of warring in a particular topic area and not an isolated incident. That's a shame as this approach will only increase the (apparently correct) perception that there are admins who always defend one of their own and will not hold them to the same standards we we expect of everyone else. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I can accept the idea that the unblock was a little bit too sudden. However, dab has been editing (mostly sensibly) in contentious topic areas for a long time, so it's unsurprising (and shouldn't be held too much against him) that he's been in more friction than editors who stay in more peaceful topics. The block/unblock pattern that you observe is another reason to expect more blocks to lead to more drama. Repeating the same action and expecting a different result is an unpromising strategy even if the action is in principle justified by policy. Anyway, dab appears to be taking an editing break, which should calm things down for now. I'll probably be offline for the rest of the day, so can't respond further for now. (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

That unblock appeared to me to be too soon, without sufficient time for any consensus to form here on the appropiateness (or otherwise) of the initial admin action. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment I would encourage extra eyes in the Topic Area, We have multiple problematic users which do nothing to help the situation. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    • "Extra eyes" only goes so far if every action an administrator makes is going to be put up for heavy scrutiny. What's the incentive to spend my time there? NW (Talk) 18:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
      • We need to one to referee while content issues are hashed out. Your reward? Warm Fuzzy feelings of doing the right thing.... I guess The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • And to those who think more talking to dab would have been helpful, I invite you to peruse the various conversations I have had with him, including the most recent one on his talk page where he asks me if I have lost my mind because I dared to block the mighty Dbachmann and suggests that the problem is my lack of testicular fortitude. He does not and will not acknowledge the flaws in his actions if other admins are always willing to step in and mollycoddle him. This is a disgraceful situation, and since apparently nobody is allowed to block dab I guess we have to go the more painful route of WP:DR. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    • With such an eclectic bunch of characters? dab is rather dull compared to some there. I'll get the popcorn ready..... The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
It's unclear at the moment if dab is going really going to take a wikibreak, resign his adminship, etc, and I really don't want to have to go there anyway so I won't be doing anything at the moment, but what else can I do? Look for yourself :[5] [6] [7][8] and tell me if you see a prolonged content war or not.He won't admit it, claiming it is simply administrative enforcement of policy and not a content dispute at all, he can't be blocked, or rather he can but the block will be overturned by other admins who seem to think it is ok for him to edit war and have let him off three times now. When I talk to him he says I am crazy and have no content in my scrotum. I'm pretty sure both my brain and my testes are functioning properly, and I see an admin acting like a bully and doing things they know damn well are disruptive, if not downright contrary to policy and consensus at the relevant article talk pages. I don't see what other options are left, but will wait for now to see what dab decides to do next, if only because formatting an RFC is a pain in the ass. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Beeblebrox I would put it to you that you have expressed here some emotional baggage that suggests that next time rather than blocking two editors neither of whom breached 3RR that you bring it to ANI and get a consensus before initiating such an action. To place a block on an editor who had been editing for six years with a clear record, without doing that because you think that the other editor is edit warring is not right. It leaves a stain on their log which is unwarranted.

If you are going to block an administrator you should think about it long and hard and discuss it with other administrators first. In all the cases I have seen where on administrator blocks another--without discussing it first at AN or ANI and getting a consensus--there is a cat fight and the blocking administrator does not walk away cleanly. In this case you have stated "I therefore blocked them both for 31 hours for clear violation of WP:EDITWAR." If it had been a clear violation then the consensus here would have agreed with you and the blocks would have remained in place. So this incident would appear to have brought into question your judgement, both for being hasty (not discussing it here first) and for your concept of what constitutes a "clear violation of EDITWAR".

I would strongly suggest that you agree with Dbachmann not use administrative actions on each other, but if either of you think that the other is out of order your report it to ANI so that an uninvolved administrator can take action, because in future like it or not you are now involved with Dbachmann and he with you. -- PBS (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

A prohibition on blocking administrators without prior discussion, in situations in which mere mortal editors could be blocked unilaterally, has the effect of placing admins "above the law" and encouraging malfeasance. Do we really want to encourage a situation in which editorial misconduct by administrators can only be addressed by arbcom, and only after a prior RFC, because any block placed on an admin's account will be immediately and unilaterally reversed, creating the impression of admins "protecting their own"? Chester Markel (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Blocking anyone who has been editing for more than a year without block, without first discussing it with the person or here at ANI is not good judgement. As I said above "In all the cases I have seen where on administrator blocks another--without discussing it first at AN or ANI and getting a consensus--there is a cat fight and the blocking administrator does not walk away cleanly." that has nothing to do with putting anyone above the law it has to do with judgement. -- PBS (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Moreover, Dbachmann's personal attacks upon Beeblebrox, or the latter's very understandable objections to them, do not create "involvement". Blocking users involved in an edit war is an action taken in an administrative capacity and does not create a personal dispute, even if one of the blocked editors is an admin whose status affords him an apparent immunity to sanctions. Chester Markel (talk) 02:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes they do create involvement. There is now bad blood between them, or are you seriously suggesting that if Dbachmann was to block Beeblebrox there would not be questions asked along those lines? The simplest way to avoid such accusations is for both to bring any future disputes between them here and ask for a third party admin to take any administrative measures necessary. -- PBS (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion the statement "If you are going to block an administrator you should think about it long and hard and discuss it with other administrators first." is grotesque and should be publically repudiated. Either replace the first occurrence of “administrator” with “editor” or don’t say it at all. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
It is not a moral issue it is a practical one. Beeblebrox would have been in a far stronger position if the issue had been discussed here first. Personally unless it was a clear breach of 3RR I would not block an long term editor of good standing (which all administrators are) under the catchall WP:EDITWAR before giving explicit warnings and probably discussing it here. -- PBS (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad to see there are finally some users with some sense commenting here. In response to PBS:I never said anyone breached 3RR, they missed it by one hour. As is clearly stated in the edit warring policy, 3RR is not an entitlement and users can be blocked without breaching it anyway. If this wasn't edit warring then what was it? I really want to know because it looks more to me like the crux of every single argument to overturn the block is more about who was blocked than what they did. It is not supposed to work like that. Admins and long term users should know not to edit war. Dab had engaged in a long-term pattern of "warring" actions here which he still refuses to acknowledge The suggestion that admins are above this policy is exactly what is wrong and severely dysfunctional about this situation. There is no policy and no precedent for that. Frankly this whole thing stinks. Every time most admins something stupid they get a lecture on how admins are supposed to be held to a higher standard than other users. Every time dab does something really stupid he gets it explained away by his cadre of defenders. I've never bumped into Jheald before that I recall but he edit warred as well. Why are they being placed in an upper class of "unblockables" who can get away with things we would block less experienced user for without another thought? Edit warring is wrong and is not supposed to be tolerated. I blocked two users for it as dictated by policy and now I'm the bad guy and it's ok to sling mud at me? I don't think so. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
You write "I never said anyone breached 3RR, they missed it by one hour. As is clearly stated in the edit warring policy, 3RR is not an entitlement and users can be blocked without breaching it anyway." Where did I write that you said someone breached 3RR? What I wrote was "If it had been a clear violation [as you claimed of WP:EDITWAR ] then the consensus here would have agreed with you ..." -- PBS (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Be that as it may, the reality of the situation also needs to be acknowledged: there are serious and ongoing issues with Dbachmann's behavior, and no sanctions will stick, unless arbcom administers them. Since he's already had the benefit of several requests for comment, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann 4 being the most recent, there would be a temptation to proceed directly to arbitration. However, the prior RFCs could be deemed insufficiently related to the present problematic conduct. Opening Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann 5, followed by an RFAR (if the issues persist, which they probably will) would be the most prudent approach. Chester Markel (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
His userpage indicates a wikibreak, and he has hinted that he may resign as an admin so I guess we should hold off for now. I wasn't aware there were four previous user conduct RFCs. Obviously I am not as alone as I thought in seeing a problem here. It looks like the last one at least did have to do with the use of admin tools though, so it is somewhat related. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Looks like the most recent one was ultimately deemed to be without merit, but Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann 3 addresses many of the exact same issues brought up here, edit warring, incivility when challenged, acting and apparently being "above the law", claiming that he is only acting to enforce policy when engaging in content disputes, etc, all the way back in 2007. It was certified by not just the required two but six other users, and the basis for it was endorsed by many more. Dab himself does not seem to have participated, so I think it is unlikely doing it again would have the desired effect. RFCs are for arriving at voluntary agreements with a user, this user has ignored or dismissed every attempt to get him to see the error of his ways, so that leaves ArbCom as the last viable option, but as I said we should maybe give it some time to see if he really does take a long break and/or give up his tools. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
To repeat what I wrote before as you seem not to have thought about it but instead tried to justify your actions without addressing implied criticism of you judgement through the revert to your blocks: You said "I therefore blocked them both for 31 hours for clear violation of WP:EDITWAR." If it had been a clear violation then the consensus here would have agreed with you and the blocks would have remained in place. So this incident would appear to have brought into question your judgement, both for being hasty (not discussing it here first) and for your concept of what constitutes a "clear violation of EDITWAR".
Beeblebrox I find in interesting that you have not addressed the issue of whether in the future you would behave in exactly the same way, or if you have leant something from this encounter: For example in future you would warn a editor of long term good standing like Jheald before blocking them under the catchall of WP:EDITWAR? --PBS (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

(od) It is probably a good idea to ask, before the action, whether a block will be a net positive or a net negative for the encyclopedia. In this case, I see no real positives. Both editors are long standing editors with clear or recently clear block logs. Both have contributed positively to wikipedia. The immediate problem was easy to handle by protecting the page (for example, MSGJ took care of the move war by move protecting the page). The only plus from blocking appears to be the 'forest from the trees' lesson that the blocking admin suggested here, a patronizing reason at best and admins are certainly not appointed to fulfill the role of educators. The big negative is that it'll drive away otherwise valuable editors who, one presumes, don't come here to get grief in the first place. I understand that given a block tool there is a strong temptation to use it but suggest that it be used lightly and definitely with care when employed against long term editors, especially when simpler remedies such as page protection are available. --rgpk (comment) 15:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC) ─────────────────────────

  • I realize this thread has grown quite long and it is possible you missed that I already clearly explained that dab has demonstrated in the past that he is quite willing to make controversial edits through a protection placed by another admin and that is why that approach was not used. I'm not so sure how you could have missed the point that this type of combative editing has been discussed with dab at extreme length over the course of the last several years. I don't see a consensus that these actions did not violate the edit warring policy, what is see is an lot of suggestions that these two users deserve special treatment. Many users who oppose the block acknowledged at the same time that they do indeed see edit warring. Look, here it is for your convenience once again:[9] [10] [11]. Not that the timestamps also indicate that breaching of the bright-line rule WP:3RR was only narrowly avoided. Note also the move warring by dab reflected here [12] and that the article was protected during those moves, demonstrating a pattern of disruption reinforced by the same issues having been repeatedly brought up in RFCs. Ok, maybe there is a valid case for warning Jheald first as he has not shown a pattern of such behavior. I'll grant that despite the fact that long term editors should already know better than to edit war, but the block of dab is completely solid, I stand by it 100%. I have repeatedly shown than this is not an isolated incident and we shouldn't let it be treated as just a experienced admin who slipped up. It is verifiably part of a long term pattern of feeling they are above being bound by our policies, a feeling re-enforced by the irresponsible action of unblocking him yet again. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • A look at dab's block log [13] also may shed some light. It seems Deacon was bit confused when unblocking, stating first that two reverts do not equal an edit war, as I have repeatedly shown each user reverted three times, and apparently mistakenly believing he was blocked for 31 days not 31 hours. Others have accused me of rushing in and using my admin tools without thinking, it seems much more clear to me that this is exactly what Deacon did. This view is further re-enforced by the fact that he realized his error a few minutes later and applied a one-second "correction" block. I blocked a user who has been doing this for years, and Deacon unblocked them on a completely false assumption you can still see reflected in another user's comments at the very beginning of this thread, without even bothering to check if it was correct or not. Consider that while you all continue to berate me for what you see as being in too big of a hurry to use my admin tools. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I put a reply here, but have deleted it as I am just starting to repeat myself. I guess you "just don't get it" so there is no point continuing. -- PBS (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Your guess is identical to mine. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree, we are at an impasse here. I understand your position, I just don't agree with it, and you clearly do not agree with mine. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Please clarify: do you or do you not intend on continuing to use the blocking tool in the way that you did in this matter if similar circumstances arose? Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
And, BTW, have you stopped beating your wife? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken, your suggestion is both unjustified and inappropriate. Mentioning 'disagreement' is one thing, but whether such tool usage will continue is another. The question concerning the latter was asked by someone else above but the blocking admin does not appear to have answered it (perhaps he missed it); Beeblebrox is being given another opportunity to answer it in this block review. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Until you're more specific than "similar circumstances," it really is a loaded question with no good answer. Beeblebrox is better off not answering, because any answer he gives is going to be unsatisfactory to some, and used against him later. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
If it ever unfortunately came to that, I don't think it's his answer which would be used against him; it would be the judgement exercised for those particular actions he made. But in any case, I hope my response adds some clarity (or even specificity) to resolve that concern. The purpose of this was to invite is a response from him as to what he has learnt from this block review - beyond the obvious fact that there are people who do not agree with him. For example, if identical circumstances arose, how would Beeblebrox respond? If identical circumstances arose, except that there was another admin instead of dab and another long standing editor instead of J, how would he respond? ...except that a different page/article was involved, how would he respond? That is what I was getting at. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment). I've only just examined this, and I see blatant edit-warring that would have gotten most "ordinary" editors blocked without anyone turning a hair. The only argument against it seems to be that "These two deserve special treatment cos one's an admin and one has been here a long time". The idea that admins deserve special treatment and are above the law, including one who has clearly been behaving in a similar "I know best" manner for quite some time, is very disturbing. In my view, Beeblebrox was correct to impose these blocks, and the near-instant non-policy unblock was quite wrong. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that I don't think User:Dbachmann was in any way acting in bad faith, but I think I see someone perhaps suffering a little bit of burnout and who, through frustration, has tried to assume too much personal authority. It's a contentious area to edit in, but I think that makes it even more important to stick to doing things properly and not seeing admins as some kind of superior beings - admins are not there to personally make content decisions. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • For the record, I read these latest comments and do not see any need to re-iterate my arguments as I have already done so many times now. However, I would add that if this were a formal discussion requiring a detailed close I don't see how it could go any way other than "no consensus," I don't see any potential for this to be used as a precedent for any action or further discussion in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing by User:WikiManOne[edit]

Pretty clear-cut this time. There is a discussion on the talk page of the article Family Research Council and currently the side advocated by WikiManOne is down by 5 votes.

A similar discussion was held on the same page 3 months ago. WikiManOne asked 5 users who had contributed to the pervious discussion to chime in this time around. He exclusively notified users who had voted the same way he voted. This is very transparent vote-stacking.

  • diff of notification of 1st pro-inclusion voter
  • diff of notification of 2nd pro-inclusion voter
  • diff of notification of 3rd pro-inclusion voter
  • diff of notification of 4th pro-inclusion voter
  • diff of notification of 5th pro-inclusion voter

No anti-inclusion voters were notified were notified of the ongoing discussion.

WM1 has been warned about canvassing in the past - Haymaker (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment - It looks like every other posting at AN/I in the last few days has been by POV pushing editors on either side of the abortion divide trying to get their POV opponents blocked or banned for one thing or another. When does this mess go to arbitration instead of wasting everyone's time here?Griswaldo (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree it has been an ongoing probably that will probably end up there but this instance is actually not related to abortion. Please just give it a go based on its merits. - Haymaker (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
In what world is the the Family Research Council not heavily involved in the politics of abortion in the USA? If there is an abortion arbitration, the entries of institutions who lobby for or against abortion, like this one does, will clearly be part of the scope. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
That actually has nothing to do with abortion--it has to do with gay rights and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Drrll (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
You mean the specific issue discussed on the talk page does not directly relate to abortion. It relates to the image of an institution heavily involved in abortion issues among others. These editors have been battling each other all over the encyclopedia on related pages. That's the problem, not the specifics of whether or not this particular issue directly mentions abortion. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
While it looks bad, am I right User talk:Uncle Dick is the exclusionist they've failed to notify? There seemed to be two other exclusionists but they remained active so notifying them was not necessary (unless WM1 notified inclusionists who remained active). Nil Einne (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, Uncle Dick was deliberately excluded from notification, User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling should have been contacted as well. - Haymaker (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, it was not a lot of work to notify Uncle Dick [14], while User:Jclemens was so kind to be the message carrier of blocked user LAEC [15].-- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
LAEC had been indefinitely blocked since 27 December. What good would contacting him have done? Doc talk 15:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Fair point. Still, WM1 almost certainly didn't know that and chose not to contact him or the other oppose editor while contacting the 5 support editors. - Haymaker (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
No argument whatsoever on not contacting "oppose" editors, for sure :> Doc talk 15:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I didn't contact inactive editors, my bad, for example, I did not contact include vote User:Groovyman1969 because he was inactive. I did know that LAEC was banned, and Uncle Dick was inactive. This is just another frivolous attempt by Haymaker to get me blocked for nothing. WMO 17:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if they have been active. The point is he is requesting comments from editors that he knows will be sympathetic to his point of view. It is a pretty clear case of Canvassing. Arzel (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
(ec) You could look at it that way, but reviewing the statistics is a little more troubling:
  • 5 of 5 editors who had previously opined that the material be included in the lead yet not returned to the page to contribute to the current straw poll were canvassed.
  • 0 of 1 editor who had previously opined that the material be excluded in the lead yet not returned to the page to contribute to the current straw poll were canvassed.
Given a previous warning on canvassing, I think the targeting of the message is troubling, though the message itself clearly remains neutral. If WikiManOne were an ARS member inviting folks to a deletion discussion in such a manner, I strongly suspect he would already be blocked. Jclemens (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Canvassing is inappropriate, and if the editor does not come with a brilliant argument for the exclusion especially after being warned, he should be temporarily blocked. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Here's the explanation guys: I contacted all the participants in the previous vote that were active and were not already participating in the current vote. As such, I was operating under the allowed part of WP:CANVASS On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics). As previously stated, all editors who participated in the previous vote and had been active recently were notified. I'm getting tired of these ridiculous accusations by Haymaker. WMO 16:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Also, this "previous warning" was not a warning at all. It was a response to my request for comment as to whether something constituted canvassing, and it obviously was not very clear. Feel free to point out this canvassing that I was warned for previously Haymaker.. lol WMO 17:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Without commenting on whether what you did was okay or not, it seems to me this whole fuss could have been avoided if you'd notified all people who had participated, active or not (blocked users who aren't coming off their block any time soon I agree aren't relevant). I appreciate it's possible you may not have noticed the one inactive user who had not participated in the discussion also happened to be the one user opposed to your POV unfortunately it does put a question mark over your actions even if it's not something you noticed at the time. (If you did notice, even if you'd decided beforehand to exclude inactive users with whatever definition you came up with on how to define someone as inactive before you checked who to notify I would suggest it's was a mistake to continue with that criteria have realised the effect.) It's worth remembering inactive does not mean 'won't notice the message or participate', some inactive people do check their accounts or even stay logged in all the time and may choose to participate again if a topic of great enough interest comes up. In this particular case it's only been ~2 months and there were only 2? inactive users so there was no real advantage to not notifying them. P.S. As a general comment what's all this discussion of a 'vote' I see in relation to this? Isn't this a typical straw poll to determine consensus not one of the very rare instances we actually vote? Nil Einne (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I also didn't contact User:Groovyman1969 who was an include vote due to his inactivity. Its a straw poll, so theoretically supposed to be a discussion but it usually turns into a headcount, mob rule, etc. lol. WMO 17:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, looks like Jclemens tally was incorrect. I have notified this user as well to keep the whole bunch in the know [16]. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Snackycakes and Destinero are as inactive as UncleDick (and LEAC) but WM1 contacted both of them because they agree with his POV. This is cut and dry votestacking. - Haymaker (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry to break it to you Haymaker, but my line of active/inactive was whether they were active after the new year. Go run around again and see if you can find where Snackycakes and Destinero posted in January. :) I would like to remind everyone that Haymaker has a track record of filing frivolous reports on here that generally don't seem to result in any action. WMO 17:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
On what grounds are you trying to discount this as frivolous. I filed 1 3rr report against you, yesterday and it still outstanding. - Haymaker (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Frivolous reports like this or this. And yes, you have posted something about me on the noticeboard twice within 24 hours, both of which are questionable. It seems to be someone failing to WP:AGF as well as just a desperate desire to get someone blocked. I will be happy to respond to an admin should they want to take this up. I believe I've explained it quite clearly. WMO 18:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
How many ANI threads about Kenatipo did you start in the same time-period? - Haymaker (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Two. One of which resulted in a 24 hour block and one which resulted in a warning, doesn't seem frivolous does it? WMO 18:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
And mine resulted in Roscelese being blocked and the jury is still out on the 2 I filed regarding you. - Haymaker (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

WM1 Canvass break[edit]

WP:CANVASS stipulates all should be notified. Pretty clear. (Though where a user has specifically stated that he wishes not to be notified, that is quite a different matter covered there). Collect (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It also says The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it., nobody was selected based on their opinions. I contacted everyone who had previously participated and has been active since the new year. Not my fault that the oppose voters who hadn't participated didn't meet the (I admit arbitrary, but acceptable) requirement I set to get a notification. WMO`
The parameters for notification you set were not arbitrary, they were deliberately set to benifit your side. After being warned about Canvassing guidelines in the past (and accusing other users of Canvassing) didn't it occur to you you that notifying 5 editors who agree with you and none who don't might be a bad idea? - Haymaker (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Do you have no reading comprehension? Where is this warning? What instance of canvassing was I being warned for? That might be too hard to understand, where exactly did I canvass previously that resulted in a warning? WMO 18:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
You were perviously accused of canvassing here. After an administrator came to you talk page and told you what canvassing was, was there any doubt in your mind as to what canvassing was? - Haymaker (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh my! Let's take everything completely out of context, perhaps you would like to go ask that admin why he posted that on my talk page, I'd wager a bet that it had nothing to do with the "report" that was more like a fishing expedition that you pointed to. There was no canvassing, and this does not count as canvassing either. WMO 19:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I don't see where it stipulates that, Collect -- I'm reading it more WM1's way in this case. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Current edit shows Posting an appropriate notice on users' talk pages in order to inform editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be appropriate under certain circumstances on a case-by-case basis. Which I rather think has the word "all" in it. And the word "everyone". The parenthetical example is, of course, an example only. Collect (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree partially SOV, but the audience was partisan, so it did violate guideline 3 and is votestacking. As a general rule I find that one should be very careful about notifications like this. Regardless of the intent, the appearance is of canvasing, and it strains the entire process. It also makes it hard to actually discuss the issue at hand because the appearance is of one lacking good faith. Arzel (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
WikiManOne appears to me to have followed the rules at CANVASS. We cannot know whether he started out with the intent to stack, or ended up there after exhausting all previously active editors who had not yet weighed in on the new issue. Binksternet (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • So far there have been two uninvolved editors have given input on this (unless I missed one), both of them have stated that they do not think that I violated WP:CANVASS. Those that are arguing otherwise are those who want me to be blocked due to disagreement in a content dispute. So much for WP:AGF, huh? WMO 19:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you might tell me when I became "involved" in your opinion? Thank you most kindly - but I rather think my opinion was not aimed against anyone at all. Collect (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps right here:
"Remove I find Jclemens to be sound on this. Not only is using a pejorative claim problematic on any WP article, especially where the reasoning for the use of "hate" is not given, the tendency on WP to categorize everything with the most extreme terminology rather than more moderate terminology is eventually going to be a problem on a great many articles. Collect (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)"
WMO 19:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
IOW, because I found this discussion here, I became ex post facto "involved"? That means anyone who opines on the article talk page after finding this discussion is "involved"? Strange logic, indeed. I do not buy that sort of logic one whit. Collect (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
You can't ask people to AGF and then in the same breath say that the opinions of everyone who disagrees with you are illegitimate. And not to be petty but Arzel and Nil Einne both said you should have notified everyone. - Haymaker (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I am as of yet uninvolved in the talk page discussion, but I would think that it is a clear violation of canvassing, when an editor informs only a select number of editors from a previous discussion, especially when based on criteria that is not even mentioned in WP:Canvass, and appears to have been created to get the desired result.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
You hadn't commented on the discussion until now. So you're suggesting that because I omitted inactive users in a good faith effort to not waste time notifying those who wouldn't care anyway, I am somehow guilty of violating WP:CANVASS, pray tell how. WMO 19:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Your defensive attitude towards my comment only convinces me even more on the inappropriateness of your behavior. If you can cite for me the section or even a sentence of WP:Canvass, that states that its appropriate to not notify a certain number of users from a previous discussion because they didn't comment any further, or were not active, or as you put it Wouldn't care anyway, then I will have a change of heart. As far as I can tell, the guideline states that you must notify all users involved in a previous discussion or as it reads... everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject. I didn't see the part where it said only active participants.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
(ec)As a disclaimer, I have been in a few discussions with these guys and there seems to be a little fault on both parts. Might I suggest short of bans/topic bans/etc. Just a disengage request and both of them leave the votes alone from now to closer unless directly engaged type thing. They can still discuss articles, edit, etc. just disengage from each other.Marauder40 (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, lets separate two things. One is whether there was canvassing going on (it at least has the impression of it) and two is whether it changed the outcome of the discussion at the talk page (no, because ultimately, all editors have been notified using the same notification and could participate). Notifying editors is definately not a problem. I would like to suggest to WikiManOne to acknowledge that it would have been wiser to notify all of the editors and that he will adhere to that in the future. Does anybody think a block would be in place? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I also want to note that the only uninvolved admin who commented on this stated above, "I'm reading it more WM1's way in this case. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)", perhaps it would have been better to notify all of the previous participants, but I will note that I also did not contact some include votes because they were inactive according to my arbitrary definition. WMO 20:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
SarekOfVulcan is taking your side in your on-going Pro-life saga (not that I doubt your intentions, SOV), so lets not wandering into this whole "involved" morass. - Haymaker (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm inclined to believe WM1 in this case, and Haymaker, your assertion that he chose his date criteria either before or after the fact to FACILITATE canvassing is purely WP:AGF-violating speculation. --King Öomie 20:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Robert Coombe[edit]

I don't know what's happening at Robert Coombe, but a whole bunch of new editors seem to be piling in and making test edits, minor edits, editing and reverting each other, etc. (I'm not going to try to notify them all). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

A couple of them did it at the related University of Denver too, but they seem to have stopped after I gave them all {{uw-test1}} messages. Worth keeping an eye on though, if anyone would be so kind. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
It shows the signs of possibly being a college class, not adequately supervised. I've reverted a few edits elsewhere from the same users. - David Biddulph (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
One of the editors confirms that it's a class.[17] Each of the editors seems to be creating a stub for a DU-area business in his/her userspace. DMacks (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I've semi-ed that page. While I generally support student Wikipedia projects, telling students to make test edits should not be taken quite that literally. Granted, it did make it easy to figure out which students were in the class.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

BrigKlyce and Panspermia[edit]

(Modified from my AIV report, in case that gets turned down) BrigKlyce (talk · contribs) continues to spam his personal blog as a source on Panspermia after last warning. He has been doing so under various accounts, even getting his step-father to meat-puppet for him. His site is not peer-reviewed, he is not a recognized scientific authority (according to his own site, he only has a degree in architecture, and seems to be pretty proud of the "special mention" this site apparently gives his overglorified blog). He has repeatedly had WP:COI and WP:RS pointed out and explained to him by various editors but shows a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, except to leave left a personal attack on my grafitti page. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Despite repeated attempts to explain the need for discussion, consensus, and civility, it appears BrigKlyce (talk · contribs) continues to enforce their edits without discussion; see many helpme responses at attempts at explanation on their talk page. As previously xe was blocked for 31 hours, for 3RR, and has repeated 3RR, I support an appropriately longer block.  Chzz  ►  22:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I know I'm supposed to assume good faith, but he appears to be a single purpose account to me. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I am seeking a consensus among your editors [18] might indicate good intent, but note contribs show no such efforts, despite repeated attempts by myself [19] [20] and others [21] to explain the need for discussion; the user has also made at least one personal attack [22].  Chzz  ►  22:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
The user is attempting to find a mediator, user Courselles here - I would rather have him contribute than unnecessarily blocked again, its hard as a new user to understand our guidelines - I see a couple of comments a bit near the line of a PA but, he has made a couple of good additions, this one for example Off2riorob (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I've been involved in a minor way. I'll remind you that newbies are unaware of our prohibition on meatpuppetry, and that edit was a response to my post telling him that he personally should not be adding that site. I think he read it a bit too literally, and missed the point. Having said this, I'm defending a very minor point—overall, I see major problems and not much hope.--SPhilbrickT 00:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
You might be right but, wiki can appear a combative place to newbies and I think we should be prepared to put in a little more effort to clearly explain points - all I see is that he wanted to add his link and its against policy, he needs to accept that without getting upset about it and being rude to editors that point that out to him, he might be a valuable contributor, if all he wanted was to add his website then he may have got the message and might not even return. Off2riorob (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd also add that comments such as "only has a degree in architecture", and an "architect pretending to be a scientist" are personal attacks. --Stephen 01:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
If the Klyce was not the person adding the link, and I said "an editor is adding a blog by an architect that fancies himself a scientist, despite not having any credentials nor being published in peer-reviewed works," noone would consider it an attack on the editor or the author, but simply pointing out that it is safe to assume the work is not a reliable source. That the editor and the author happen to be the same person does not change that. We do have policies that allow people to use their own work as references, if the work meets WP:RS or if that person is a notable authority in the field. Those are exceptions to the rules that people generally aren't supposed to shove their own work in, especially personal website. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

+ It seems that Wikipedia wants to evaluate Brig Klyce as an editor. Brig Klyce wants you to evaluate as a resource. Any chance? BrigKlyce (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Postscript: Is knowing the subject among the criteria for editing a page?

I don't think you're understanding what this discussion is about. We're trying to discuss your actions; if you want that website considered, please discuss it on the relevant article's talk page. And re. your PS, no, but it's discouraged to edit a page about someone you know if you know the subject well, under our conflict of interest guideline. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Just to be fair, Fetchcommms, I think that his comment is responding to the implied claims that since he's "only" an architect, he shouldn't be representing himself as a scientist. And the answer to that question (if that is, in fact, what BrigKlyce is asking), is no--you don't need to have any specific content knowledge to edit any given article. However, you shouldn't be adding the link to Wikipedia pages; in fact, it's very generally frowned upon to link to material that you yourself have created. The point about you being an architect is that the only time we allow links to blogs is when the person is a notable expert in the field (an exemption which is very rarely granted, I might add), which you do not appear to be. So, no you shouldn't be adding that link, because it doesn't meet our guidelines. You are, however, welcome to continue to contribute to Wikipedia in other ways, but you need to do so by making changes based upon reliable sources and following our other editing policies. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I will note that I, too, am "only" an architect, but must agree that anything I might post in a blog about panspermia would have no value as a reference and would be inappropriate to add as an external link. Acroterion (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)"the only time we allow links to blogs is when the person is a notable expert in the field ... which you do not appear to be" - This is what I mean by "only an architect." I think it should also be pointed out that even if the website was not his, it still would not meet our site's sourcing policies. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, Acroterion, I agree the only absolute qualification to edit Wikipedia is literacy. You've got the point about the blog issue, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
No offense taken - don't worry about it, I was having a bit of fun with my profession, which sometimes has an inflated opinion of itself. Obviously, we agree on the point at hand. Acroterion (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the civil discussion. I believe I am a notable expert on panspermia, as I have studied it for 30 years and been invited to present papers or write articles about it often. But I understand your worries about someone linking to his own material. OK. In the instance that started this edit war, I referenced an article, "More Evidence for Indigenous Microfossils in Carbonaceous Meteorites" whose first author is not I, but Richard Hoover, who is extremely distinguished. The reference is a web article with previously unpublished photos, and the material is available elsewhere only by reference to the original article. How else will your readers find the material, except with a link to it: [23]? No Wikipedia editor has actually viewed the link, as far as I can tell. It would seem that providing important content is not a high priority at Wikipedia. I understand your rules, so no need restate them. If somebody wants to restore the link, great. I'll look at your panspermia in a few weeks to see what you did. Sorry to be so annoyed. Bye. BrigKlyce (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Neither you nor Hoover appear to meet those, or else we would have articles on you or him. And again, since you apparently didn't hear it the first hundred times, your site is not a reliable source because it is not peer-reviewed. That it is your site shows a conflict of interest. For the record, I looked at it and I'm fairly certain others have as well (which is why they agree it fails our reliable sourcing guidelines), but that is not what is meant by "peer-reviewed." Ian.thomson (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. The website lists no peer-reviewed publications by Brig Klyce. Brig - I understand your interest in this topic, but we insist that citations be to sources which are independently reviewed and quality controlled in some manner. A paper in a peer reviewed publication or a conference proceedings with peer review for acceptance, with generally recognized expert peer reviewers, would qualify. If you have done such work it should be listed on your website. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I have, and it is. [24] BrigKlyce 16:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

  • - I am no scientist (thats clear) but this person appears to have been published and searching around appears respected, why is the site rejected out of hand, is it because no other people in the field have reviewed his publications? Also could we have a more NPOV section header.Off2riorob (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • ThinkQuest is a project "by students for students"? The site lists 3 teachers as coachs, but that's all the review that the site seems to be getting. They present him as "the writer and creator of the internet's most comprehensive website on panspermia,". --Enric Naval (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Ok, thanks, and abouthis.htm#publications - so is there no situation that the website or a book cite from the author (brig) would be an added informative external in our articles? Off2riorob (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Totally not involved and only popped by to see what the latest dramah was on ANI and thought I'd throw in a couple cents. I went by his website and had a look at his publications list. Rather than listing his whole site as a resource, which seems to be the problem here, I don't see any problem with citing from his publications themselves. SPIE is a very respected international organisation and getting into their proceedings for conferences, while not on the scale of difficulty as Nature or Science, is still a peer reviewed process. (I've submitted to a SPIE conference before myself). His site may not be a reliable source but citing his journal/proceedings articles may be a suitable compromise. Blackmane (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree with Blackmane. While the ThinkQuest "publications" wouldn't work, the SPIE ones would, so cite those directly. There's no reason to cite the user's website at all. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The proposed reference, "More Evidence for Indigenous Microfossils in Carbonaceous Meteorites" [25] (which would currently be about #57 on your pansperma page), is the only place to see these photographs of Hoover's. Yes, some others are in the book referenced, and in conference proceedings listed on my website, but they are accessible only by purchase. That's why Hoover agreed to publish these photos on BrigKlyce (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the documents are purchase only is irrelevant. The important point is that the articles are peer reviewed and that they exist. If you're only using them as refs it doesn't matter that they are purchase only since you're only referring to them. If the reader is interested in further investigating the topic they can decide whether to purchase the document or not. This way is comparable to citing of other journal/proceeding articles in a paper you are writing. —Blackmane (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I see that an editor has removed the opening reference to comets as vehicles for panspermia. Ridiculous. I'm done. Good luck. BrigKlyce (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

POV pushing by single purpose account User:ObjectivelyWise at Family Research Council.[edit]

Last December, the Southern Poverty Law Center designated the Family Research Council and several other anti-gay groups as hate groups. This has led to a concerted effort to keep that label first out of the article and later out of the lead. Tactics include trying to discredit the SPLC, digging up ancient isolated references that label the SPLC as liberal etc. After a lengthy discussion, consensus was to add a sentence to the lead. The sentence was added to the lead in early December.[26] The addition has been target of vandalism since then. By the end of January, single purpose user ObjectivelyWise (talk · contribs) showed up, who is very aware of wikipedia policies and except for 6 other edits, only edits this article. First by bluntly removing the consensus material [27][28], then trying to nchnage the wording such that it was incorrect which resulted in a long discussion about the lead [29]. The consensus that time was again to keep it. Now it has been brought back again for discussion [30], and is degrading into name calling and trying to push out editors. It has now degraded in trying todiscredit m [31], something even noticed by others. [32]. The mentality at the page becomes more and more one of power use to discredit the regulars at the page by an obviously knowledgeable single purpose account (sockpuppet?). -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Is it customary or even advisable for someone in my position to respond to these sorts of things here? I personally would rather not lend credence to Kim van der Linde's attempts at character assassination by addressing them. I will, of course, respond if I need to for purposes of the administrator who will be handling this. My thoughts are that my discussion at the talk page [33] supports my position well enough. ObjectivelyWise (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
KimvdLinde is biased editor and has problems with her POV p