Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive701

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Block of Δ for violation of community inposed sanctions?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I'm sorry some particularly vocal opponents of Delta don't like my compromise; my talk message to Delta tried to convey that the reduction was not a vindication. And I have long felt that it is arbitrary to require consensus to overturn a block for something as subjective as incivility, without requiring consensus to block in the first place. Either way, this is done here; further discussion of Delta, if it is required, must leave this thread behind to get anywhere. Options:
  1. Propose a site ban for Delta at WP:AN, providing coherent, well-argued, well-evidenced justification. Either now or in the future.
  2. Propose a topic ban for Delta relating to WP:NFCC images at WP:AN, providing coherent, well-argued, well-evidenced justification. Either now or in the future. Moot. Done it myself, at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:.CE.94_editing_restrictions_on_NFCC.
  3. Somehow fix the underlying problem with NFCC
  4. Start a new thread proposing a longer block for the specific incivility incident, even though there's no way consensus would be achieved for that.
  5. Amend Delta's civility restriction to specifically exclude staleness from consideration.
  6. Complain about me, in whatever way you see fit.
  7. Reopen a thread even though it's far too long, clearly served its purpose and going nowhere. Wikipedia slogan after all is "the free theatre" [I think, maybe I should check that].
  8. Other (suggestions on a postcard).

Rd232 talk 14:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


User:Δ (a.k.a. User:Betacommand) is currently under a community imposed sanction for civility issues.

"Betacommand is placed under community enforced civility parole. If any edits are judged to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked by an uninvolved administrator"

Seeing as this edit clearly violates that sanction (I'm pretty sure "Your stupidity astounds me" and "SHUT THE FUCK UP" are demonstrably uncivil), I believe a block is in order here. — BQZip01 — talk 05:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC) [additional info added for clarity]

That was a good three and a half days ago... NW (Talk) 05:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Then make it retroactive to 3 1/2 days ago. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. To NW: So it somehow doesn't count? — BQZip01 — talk 05:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it was uncivil, but the comment to which he was responding was an extraordinary accusation of bad-faith editing by someone who was wrong on several counts, and this smacks of forum-shopping, since you participated in the thread on the noticeboard on which that thread originally appeared. Horologium (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me!?! Perhaps you should read the thread cited and not the entire page (which is an amalgam of ANI discussions related to delta). I certainly have participated in other discussions, but not this one. In either case, he's still in violation and needs a block. Honestly, I don't care how long it is. Even a single day (retroactive) for each is fine with me as it logs that this was yet another violation and serves as incentive to not let this happen again... — BQZip01 — talk 05:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
It's simply a continuation of the three sections before it, all of which deal with Indonesian banknotes, and you did participate in that discussion. Saying that you didn't participate in one specific section of a long discussion is disingenuous, to say the least. Horologium (talk) 06:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
If we're going to get completely technical, let's get technical:
  1. Yes, I participated in the single discussion prior which consisted of three subheadings. They were not three separate discussions.
  2. In that discussion, I only made comments as clarification to copyright law.
  3. No comments were made in response to anything said by Δ.
  4. No comments were directed toward Δ.
  5. No comments ever criticized Δ's contributions.
  6. While the last discussion on ANI regarding Δ and the previous were on the same subject, they addressed slightly different issues and were 3 days apart. I did not participate in the latter discussion in any form.
In any case, my involvement is inconsequential. Your accusation that I'm forum shopping is baseless and completely without merit. — BQZip01 — talk 06:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

And for good measure, he's also violated "Betacommand must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time."

See his edits on 19 May (from 18:08-18:18): [1] — BQZip01 — talk 05:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the sanctions, I don't see a statute of limitations, e.g. that it has to have happened within the last 24 hours or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
That makes 2 of us. — BQZip01 — talk 05:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
30 edits over a period of 10 minutes is less than 4 edits/minute. Seriously, are you trying to look for a reason to get him blocked? NW (Talk) 18:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
How about, blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive? Nothing good will come from a block here. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 05:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Blocks are indeed supposed to be preventative. Blocks with continuously increasing severity should make his sanctions abundantly clear. It should also be noted that the second link I cited occurred less than 8 hours after a previous block expired...for violations OF THE SAME THING!!! By letting it slide, it only encourages more behavior in violation of the community sanctions. — BQZip01 — talk 06:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Delta was already blocked for the May 19th edits. That's off the table. --MASEM (t) 06:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
No, he wasn't. He was last blocked on the 18th, and the complaint mentioned above by BQZIP occurred after that block expired. As regards the "punitive" vs. "preventive"... well, he was blocked for an entire year, and it still didn't "prevent" once he was unblocked again. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
So he "got away with it" as I assume you might put it. The strange thing is that none of the participants in that exchange reported this; it can therefore be assumed that none of them was sufficiently offended. Now three days later, you, who was not even part of this discussion, dig it up. Seems to me that when none of the participants reported it, that should be the end of the story. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I point to this VPR thread (per his restrictions ) on the 14th Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_73#Heads_up which occurred after the 13th block for the same issue and where he seeks permission to continue the task (per his restrictions). Again, off the table. --MASEM (t) 06:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
So it's OK for him to violate the restrictions? Then what's the point of the restrictions? Just toss them out the window and let him do whatever he wants... which he will anyway, as you well know. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
No, given that his community sanctions say that he should engage VPR for 24 hr before starting a bot-like task, he did that after his block on the 12-13th (for not doing that the first time). --MASEM (t) 07:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Lift the sanctions totally, OR indef-block, and these kinds of discussions go away. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Δ blocked[edit]

A pretty clear textbook violation of the community-based restrictions. I've put him on ice for 48 hours, if other admins feel this is unduly harsh I'd be open to reducing it to 24 hours. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC).
Thank you. — BQZip01 — talk 06:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Pfff... there should be some common sense on having violations expire, lest we get people being hunted down for days and months. Would anyone block for something that happened in March? 2010? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
If it were anyone else, I probably would just tut-tut and let it pass. But in this case, the community has determined that there are certain standards that this person must follow, there is no statute of limitations, and honestly they ought to know better by now. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC).
You have had four (as of this writing) uninvolved editors telling you your block was inappropriate and incorrect, you shouldn't be defending it. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 06:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
You're wrong, and if you knew anything about Beta/Delta's history, you would know why you're wrong: He is constantly "testing" his limits to see what he can get away with. If you enable him, you spit on the sanctions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
And what makes you think I don't? Strange Passerby (talkcont) 06:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, you admit spitting on the sanctions? Way to go. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
No. Clarification of my previous comment: What makes you think I don't know anything about Betacommand's history? Strange Passerby (talkcont) 06:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Because you reached the wrong conclusion. If you knew about his history, you would reach the right conclusion: Indefinite Block. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly, I strongly disagree. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 06:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly, Beta/Delta has played you for a sucker yet again. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose and Overturn Purely punitive block at this point. N419BH 06:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree. Unblock. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Strongly object to block, overturn at once. Clearly punitive. Slap blocking admin on wrist. Bad block. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 06:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose block. Clearly punitive at this point. Horologium (talk) 06:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite block since the last "preventive" block, for a year, did nothing to change his behavior. Either that, or remove the community sanctions, if you're not willing to enforce them anyway. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support an even longer block If this was a single user on even their third incident, I'd agree that this is harsh. But this particular user was blocked for an entire year for this kind of behavior and was let back in only upon condition that this kind of behavior completely ceased. Given the multiple violations (even a recent one immediately after a block for a violation of the same community sanctions,), this is a clear-cut blockable situation. Also, every block is punitive, by definition. The prevention portion comes from preventing more contributions that are uncivil and/or violate his community sanctions. — BQZip01 — talk 06:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC) (Note: I changed a bit of my phrasing which was quoted accurately below)
    Given you're the one who requested the block, it's not surprising you're "siding with the admin on this one". Strange Passerby (talkcont) 06:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    Since short-term blocks have proven not to be preventive, only an indef will prevent. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Overturn - Civility is a two-way street. If people don't respect civility in discussing issues with Delta - and are aware that Delta is under such restrictions, this is simply gaming the system and creates entrapment for Delta - or otherwise he's forced to sit back and take ridicule. Yes, I could say that Delta's response could have been more tempered, but the editor in question has been dogging Delta for a few weeks now over image issues, so frustration is likely high here. --MASEM (t) 06:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm waiting for you to retract the "off the table" comment from earlier, since you got the sequence of events wrong. That's one of two things you've gotten wrong here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Horologium. Thinking there should be a link to WP:GROWATHICKERSKIN. Yea, Delta/Beta can be rude, crude, and ignorant; but I don't see a personal attack here. @Delta/Beta .. come on dude, think before you post. There are tender ears here, and they are easily offended. Play nice. — Ched :  ?  06:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    • So "PLEASE SHUT THE FUCK UP" is not a personal attack? Or is it okay because he said "Please"? Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC).
      • No, "please shut the fuck up" is not a personal attack. It doesn't attack the character of anyone, which would be the definition of a personal attack. It's incivility at worst. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 06:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I would like to point out that every "involvement" I've ever had with Beta/Delta has been extremely unpleasant. Because of him, I long ago gave up on uploading any images except amateurish pictures I've taken myself, which he can't touch. From where I stand, he's to be avoided like the plague. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Note civility isn't the only player here: he also violated his edits-per-minute restriction. On top of that, he violated his civility restriction less than 8 hours after a 24-hour block for the same thing. — BQZip01 — talk 06:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't see that, based on his contributions; he's limited to no more than four edits per minute, and at no time on the 19th did he exceed that even once. Horologium (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Check 18:08-18:18 — BQZip01 — talk 07:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I see no point in that block on the 19th where he exceeds 4 edits per minute. Heck, it looks like he's operating at 3 edits per minute, at most. --MASEM (t) 07:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite blockper Baseball Bugs. Clearly a recidivist. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support If this was any other contributor under the same restrictions, this action would be entirely uncontroversial, and that's the standard we should apply here. The user is being offensive and treating other contributors with outright disrespect. It's not a case of "if you have lots of friends on AN/I, you can get away with it". Orderinchaos 07:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    The comments were made three days ago! Strange Passerby (talkcont) 07:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    And that makes it all OK? If I go out and hit somebody, and the police come knocking on my door three days later, I'll be sure to remember that one. It's still a breach of the restrictions. Orderinchaos 07:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Uncivil? Yes. Stale as mouldy bread? Also yes. Unblock.Courcelles 07:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Where are you seeing a statute of limitations in the sanctions? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I just found that line that says discussion must take place prior to blocking. I'm simply assuming this means the discussion must be conclusive... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Which it never is conclusive, because his defenders are convinced wikipedia would collapse without him. So the sanctions are meaningless, and you might as well revoke them and let him do whatever he wants - which he will continue to do anyway. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
          • Bugs, you seem to be under a misconception that those of us opposing this block are some kind of defenders of Delta. As far as I know, I've never said one word about him, anywhere. If this edit had been made tonight, or perhaps even yesterday, I'd have enforced the sanctions myself- it's uncivil, no doubt about it. But just like blocked for 80+ hour old edit wars doesn't actually do any good, neither does blocking for 80+ hour old incivility- it doesn't prevent anything. The sanctions say he "may be" blocked, not that he must be; we still have to filter violations through common sense and fairness, and blocking for one ill-tempered comment from Wednesday on Sunday morning is not the best course of action. Courcelles 07:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
            • I just wonder in amazement that the same arguments are going on here, for the last several years, and always with the same conclusion: The guy breaks rules, and his defenders find ways to be sure nothing comes of it. So why bother with bogus "sanctions"? If he's so freakin' valuable to the project, then just officially trash the sanctions and be done with it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • OK .. the Your stupidity astounds me part I'll admit is a personal attack. Look, Delta/Beta is a fantastic "computer" person, and has a ton of technical skills which benefit the project greatly. On the other hand, he does lack a lot of inter-personal skills we like to see here. I have no desire to argue with the blocking admin, (lord knows he'll find plenty of support), I'm just saying that when someone gets poked constantly, they will tend to snap back. And heaven knows that Delta/Beta has been poked plenty during his tenure here. Ya'all do what ya want, I'm way too tired to argue this tonight. — Ched :  ?  07:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Why are you so butthurt? Unblock them for mierda's sake. It's not worth it to block him now, as somebody else pointed out above, blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive, and that's what I'm just seeing. Diego Grez (talk) 07:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - it's worth pointing out that the fact that the incivility is a few days old also means that the user has allowed the incivility to stand for a few days, having had ample opportunity to go back and strike it or apologise. This, given the civility restriction, makes me support a block despite the circumstances that justifiably provoked anger. However, given that there hasn't been a civility block since at least October, 24 hours seems enough. Rd232 talk 07:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Δ has been slipping back to the attitudes and issues that has resulted in him being banned previously, and needs to be made aware that there is little tolerance for this manner of interaction. I recently noticed that for someone who claims that their actions are enforcement of community derived policy, that they are truculent when having the same criteria applied to them. Another unfortunate return to old habits is the manual archiving - the page has an archive bot - of complaints rather than responding further. As of old, when violations of his restrictions are noted to him Δ responds by disregarding the fact and by emphasising the "benefit", even after acknowledging the restrictions earlier. A regrettable return to Appeal to authority" is also apparent, where reference to expertise in policy is substantiated by links to an essay and a guideline, and in an instance where such knowledge has determined that "...consensus means nothing" when it comes to Δ's interpretation of WP:NFCC. However, these issues are nothing to do with the policy regarding Fair Use for copyrighted material but how Δ interacts when his edits are questioned. I have for a little while been concerned that Δ is dropping back into the bad old ways that got him banned previously, but since I am very likely an "involved party" following a dispute over a Fair Use image, which resulted in my concerns being removed as "trolling", I have not brought up the issue - although, as can be seen, I have been keeping note. One last point, in regard to the argument that blocks are supposed to be preventative and not punative; if Δ does not wish to examine the point of whether the previous community ban has never been voided, but simply superceded for a year by the ArbCom restriction, or whether a new one need be put in place, then this block and the other one this month should serve as a reminder that he edits at the sufferance of the community, regardless of the quantity and quality of the vast majority of his edits, providing his communications remain respectful and he does not exceed a certain number of edits per time period. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Good block and, should, in the usual way, double at the next offense, if there is one. Clearly preventative, as the history shows that the user will continue unless checked. It would be very unfortunate for the technical aspects of Wikipedia , a well as for delta, if he were blocked indefinitely, and strong action is necessary to prevent a descent into circumstances that would make this necessary. "Delta's response could have been more tempered"-- I don't really see how it could have been less tempered, and it does not seem appropriate to me to try to diminish the nature of it in view of the record. DGG ( talk ) 14:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Overturn. Stale as hell and none of the participants complained. To dig through days later and use it to stir the pot when no one involved found it offensive enough to complain about is petty, juvenile and borders on wikistalking. -- ۩ Mask 15:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    Actually, the person at whom the remark was directed DID complain about it, but the discussion was closed before anything was done about it. Moreover, stalking or hounding has pretty clearly defined boundaries...which haven't even been approached in this case. — BQZip01 — talk 15:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    Yes, the person at whom the remark was directed at DID complain MOST VEHEMENTLY, saying "Also, wasn't one of the terms of your probation to stay civil?"... er, well, maybe not that vehemently. Rd232 talk 15:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment (general) Looking at the discussion here so far, background, and the history, this has been escalating for sometime. Sometimes, moving against simple solutions leads to more complications - which are considered worse (or less preferred) for all involved. I think the make or break point is really going to depend on whether everyone can come to some form of agreement, consensus or compromise on the (ongoing) underlying issues in dispute, particularly in how to handle those issues. If there is no change though, I don't see how this situation surrounding delta will be able to avoid ArbCom intervention. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Overturn. Also, replace the restriction by something more effective (if people feel this is needed). One of the first lessons you learn in Kindergarten is that words don't hurt. In the real world the people who use bad language tend to disqualify themselves. So, I think a sanction that would place a warning on top of his talk page that points out that this user has civility issues, is far more effective. He can then appeal to have such a banner removed after behaving in an exemplary way for, say, a year. Count Iblis (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Also, a little icon of a piece of coal could be added to his signature. No presents for you this year, Delta! Rd232 talk 16:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support block This a collaborative project, that environment is damaged when editors act this way. He's under sanctions and no one should be surprised when they are invoked when they are violated. Also support blocks of increasing length if he continues this behavior. RxS (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, per RxS. We're here to collaborate, not to shout at each other. Either you learn that, or you find another place where you can shout at people all you want. --Conti| 17:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Reluctantly support block, oppose ban I doubt the block will have any power to convince beta/delta that the restrictions matter if it is overturned immediately. And despite my lingering reservations about civility blocks, I'd be hypocritical if I supported them for some vested editors and not others. I would prefer that we somehow find an amicable solution to all of this, as beta/delta is a valuable contributor. Also, "shut the fuck up" is not a personal attack, as those above have suggested. Protonk (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Support block/ban DELTA has been the subject of at least two ANI threads just this month and it appears he's been in similar hot water for a long time, as in years. Deja vu his friend Damiens.rf, who's now the subject of a third thread just on him in the last month. These two users have had multiple chances to learn to work in this collaborative environment and since they obviously seem incapable thereof, I regretfully support banning them both. BarkingMoon (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support block; re-open ban proposal. Crystal clear community sanctions are in place, and the blocks arising from them are meant to be punitive. That's the whole point. We aren't playing a game of cops and robbers here - just like in the real world, people on parole do not get free passes so long as they evade scrutiny for a certain amount of time. Even so, it's definitely not OK that it takes the admin corps 3 days to act on this user in the way the community has already asked them to do so in response to such blatant and flagrant violations of their parole, and it's not OK that the resulting block length in this case is so short as to be meaningless given his past record. The fact we have to even have this discussion shows that community imposed sanctions clearly don't work with this editor. Indef blocks don't work with this editor either, even if it had been imposed as one as it should have - he has made promise after promise after promise. An arbitration case over what to do with this editor would be the 3rd of its kind, which must be some kind of record, and would most certainly see Delta banned for at least another year if not longer, even if the evidence was restricted to his repeat violations over the last 6 months in his new incarnation, many of which seem to have been being ignored just like this latest breach. We are getting to the stage now where editors who have never even heard of Betacommand are making the exact same observations about Delta's failings as an editor, not that this stops them from being attacked as 'harassers of Beta' by his regular enablers. People justifying his violations based on the work he does, or the grief he attracts due to his own failings as an effective communictor, are tired old excuses which wore out years ago, and on basic principle had no real validity even then. Delta is an unreformable editor. It should be game over by now. As the second block for violating his restrictions with a month, a community ban proposal was more than in order, and it should not be within the powers of a single admin to shut it down before a consensus is even remotely able to be reached, even if it turned out to be a SNOW rejection. MickMacNee (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Any ban proposal should be made at WP:AN. A ban of an established contributor is a response to a long term pattern of behaviour and it should not be mixed up with handling a single, minor incident which there is barely even a consensus to block for. Rd232 talk 19:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Nonsense. Wrong venue? Don't make me laugh. Minor? Ditto. No established pattern? Unbelievable. Consensus? To ignore a community sanction? Not even close. MickMacNee (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
It is the wrong venue (as I just explained), and it is minor: it's a single civility incident. For the rest, you invert my statements, which is good for the dramaz but not much else. Rd232 talk 20:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
If it was simply the 'wrong venue', you would have moved it yourself, so please, let's have no more in that regard, unless you are now prepared to move it yourself, or will give explicit permission to the initiator to do so if he disagrees with your unilateral shut down. As for your continued refusal to accept established facts and pretend that this was a "minor" incident worthy of treating in complete and utter isolation, not even blockable apparently, then I will be more than happy to quote you on that in a request for arbitration clarification, to get these apparently worthless community sanctions placed within the purview of AE enforcement, instead of admins like yourself. MickMacNee (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah, Mick, Mick, Mick. I closed it because it was both the wrong venue and ludicrously disproportionate; and nobody who wants to make a genuine proposal (I don't think the thread initiator actually wanted a ban outcome, seeing as they opposed the block) needs my permission to do so. And I've repeatedly stated that it's a minor incident, because it is; but if you'd pay attention, I did actually endorse the block, albeit suggesting 24h was enough. And I can only echo Protonk's sentiment in this thread - you seem rather keen to fashion precedents which would apply to you at least as much as anyone else. Rd232 talk 00:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad you've finally admitted the real reason for closing it - you in all your powers decided it was not a 'genuine proposal' and so uniltaterally shut it down. On an editor/issue you've admitted further down below you weren't even familiar with. I don't give a monkeys about Proton's threats, neither you or him seem to have the slightest idea that in comparison to Beta/Delta, my record is that of Mother Theresa. If either of you want to insult me further by suggesting that we are even remotely the same, then I really will start to take it as a personal attack on my reputation as an editor. Also, you can stop insinuating I am blind and have not read the whole thread too, or that I am not making these comments precisely because you have decided to repeatedly wrongly describe this as a "minor" incident. Your personal endorsement of a 24 hour block on that flawed basis is neither here nor there with regards this habit of yours for shutting down proposals on ANI uniltarally. MickMacNee (talk) 11:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't know how to say this without it sounding like a threat, so I'll just come out with it and you'll have to take my word that I don't personally bear any animus toward you or plan to act on this. If this sort of ban/block etc process becomes commonplace for borderline civility violations you are on a (no so) short list of editors who will see the business end of it. Protonk (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
If and when I find myself in a similar situation to Delta, with 2 arbitration cases behind me, a year long ban and a return only allowed with promises to be civil in the utmost from now on, and with several community restrictions put in place on me to ensure that, and to deal with all my other problems, with administrators advised to block me whenever they see a violation, with no clauses inserted about how quickly they need to notice such violations, then I'd have no issue with the community being allowed to have a ban discussion should I so flagrantly take the piss out of the community in this way by violating said restrictions not once but twice in a month so unambiguously, and on numerous other times recently. As such, I could care less if it was a threat or not, it was pretty much irrelevant. MickMacNee (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
You will of course do what you feel is right. I'm just asking you to bear this in mind. Protonk (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I really could care less. If you want to actually threaten me, then come to my talk page and do so, so I can remember the where's and the why's incase it becomes relevant in the future. If you want to make a valid point regarding this user and this incident, then hurry up an make it. Because you're doing neither at the moment. MickMacNee (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Ched: Be nice. Looks bad from the surface, but the 10,000 ft view sees this as ineffective at preventing something that took place several days ago, and is being rekindled for who knows what. Wisely, the section below was closed out. A look at the comments (or egging on) in that section, doesn't seem to instill confidence that this was initially brought to AN/I for the reasons stated. This discussion in itself will give Delta an opportunity to reflect on his civility. A late and long block called for by a third party with an agenda will only fill him with a sense of injustice or punishment being served. 70.177.189.205 (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support short block Oppose longer block. Given the sanctions, the wording choice is clearly a violation. However, I've not seen a convincing rationale for extending the block at all, much less to indef.--SPhilbrickT 20:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    How about the fact that he's had years to correct this behaviour and failed? We were to use an analogy, he's probably on his 80th strike..but still the crowd calls another shot..--Crossmr (talk) 04:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Unblock short blocks like this do nothing but rile up those who were blocked. Either make it sufficiently long (couple weeks or months), ban entirely, or ignore it. -Atmoz (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support block - uncivil behaviour has no place here, especially when Delta has sanctions against such behaviour. May I add, however, that all this talk of bans etc. is utter nonsense. GiantSnowman 20:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. I get what the "it was a stale complaint" people are saying, but lets face it. This editor was given far too much leeway the first time around and ultimately became nothing but a time sink. I see no reason for us to go down this road again. In short, specifically because it is Delta and specifically because of his history, I think this is a good block. Letting him off the hook only wastes more of our time in the future. Resolute 21:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Fuck me, he said the word "fuck" four fucking days ago! Lock him up and throw away the key, I say! Or recognise that people lose their tempers sometimes, especially when faced with flase accusations and assumptions of bad faith. That works too, but it's not as satisfying. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    Unfortunately for Delta, this is only a symptom of a greater problem. Unless you edited before your account, you only joined us a couple years ago which is more towards the tail-end of the whole betacommand thing. You really didn't get to experience the long thumbing of the nose at the community that some other people involved in this discussion did. Many of them are quite tired of it.--Crossmr (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    Then those relevant issues should be discussed, not incidents like this. Using this sort of incident to block someone as a stick to settle some other score (that perhaps does needs to be settled in some way), does not lead the editor to accept this sanction, so he will then continue to thumb his nose at us. From his POV that's the natural thing to do. Count Iblis (talk) 00:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
    Except this incident is one of those issues. Betacommand/Delta has had issues with civility stretching back for years. His involvement in NFCC always ends up the same way. If he were anyone else, he'd still be banned or at least on a topic ban. He has had years to reform his behaviour and he's failed to do so. He's been giving far more chances and far more time than any other user, except maybe giano, to turn it around, but he's utterly failed to do so.--Crossmr (talk) 04:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • support indefinite the fact that we need to have this discussion again is all that's needed. It's clear he has made no real changes to his behaviour, and I loathe having to play this back and forth game for months and years on end until he's finally punted again. He was given ample opportunity to shape up and has failed to do so.--Crossmr (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Betacommand...Wasn't he the one who had that bot program and any time someone had an issue with it, his response boiled down to "my bot works fine, you're just a moron"? HalfShadow 00:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Overturn - I see a vendetta pushed by an anti-NFCC crusader, and nothing more. BQZip01 is playing off of Delta's bad reputation to try and remove Delta, a strong voice in the pro-NFCC camp, from the picture. Delta isn't an ideal editor, but lets not for a moment pretend that BQZip01's championing of a block here isn't politically motivated. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Overturn Sven is spot on. Looking through the diffs, I find the following:
  • A user opens a discussion with multiple taunts at Delta, taking a final swing at him with this.
  • Delta fires back with the offending comment.
  • The incident took place on an admin's message board or was moved to one, where there are plenty of adults to handle the situation if it got out of hand. It seems to have ended without any lasting injuries.
  • The purpose of that discussion wss to fight another battle in the continuing war between the forces of "Keep" and those of "Delete".
  • An editor involved in the battle, but not the recipient of the comment decides to bring the incident here. Is it just me, or does it seem that this 3rd party is playing this forum, (and the communities short patience for Delta) for the advantage of those opposed to Delta's Keep/Delete views? I would like to AGF, but the more you dig into it, the clearer it becomes that this in nothing more than a politically motivated complaint. 12Minutes to 10pm 02:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Block reduced to 24 hours[edit]

In view of the failure to achieve consensus for a block here, the staleness of the complaint, and the fact that it was brought by a third party seemingly in furtherance of an unrelated dispute, I've reduced the block to 24 hours, which is 3 hours short of "time served", and is a compromise that makes no-one happy but allows a productive editor to get back to editing. It's a compromise which removes (most of) the punitive element many objected to, whilst acknowledging that Delta was uncivil in a way which breached his civility restrictions. Now, let's argue about that some, because none of us having anything better to do. Like, say, look at the size of Category:Wikipedia backlog and wonder how much smaller it might be if we could just (ahem, I phrase this advisedly) let shit go. Rd232 talk 02:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that you've left anyone any choice but to have these community sanctions upgraded into arbitration remedies so that they can be properly enforced, and the community can be assured that admins like you will face sanctions yourselves for so blatantly thumbing your nose at the community, who have been drained by trying to deal with this editor for years now in ANI cluterfucks just like this, and came up with those sanctions as a last last last last resort. The message you've just sent out to this editor, who you acknowledge below you weren't even too familiar with, is nothing short of outrageous. The message you've just sent out to any admins who might still be willing to block this editor for blatant violations is also loud and clear. That's two actual blocks placed for sanction violations in a month, and countless other violations that went unnacted on presumably precisely because of nonsense like this which passes as review at ANI. It's frankly unbelievable that you can remotely claim that the people who objected to a 'punative element' have any leg to stand on whatsoever. It's beyond ludicrous. And the user himself hasn't even commented yet, so we don't even get to see him explain why he decided to be so blatantly incivil (and bearing in mind that such explanations have in the past been rare). Sure, we've had the usual attempts at excusing his behaviour which you have presumably also counted as part of a 'consensus' that this was a bad block, but as I said, in a third arbitration case on this user, those sorts of pleas are going to be worthless, because it's all be seen before time after time after time. We ended up with those sanctions for crystal clear reasons, that you have just completely and utterly ignored. MickMacNee (talk) 10:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, given the false claims made by rd232 below, I honestly see his actions as disruptive and I wonder if he's open to recall. He tossed himself into a highly controversial situation that he admittedly wasn't fully informed on, and then to back up his reasoning he made statements which have been proven false and which relied on a total error of logic. If it takes us a third trip to arbitration to be done with this, so be it.--Crossmr (talk) 10:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I know it is long past the event, but I thought that you needed consensus to undo an admin action, providing it was not egregious or an obvious mistake - i.e. consensus for a change in the status quo? (Of course, the same understanding means that no one should undo your change unless there is consensus to do so.) From a reading of the comments there may have been a slight minority who agreed with the block as it then stood, but that includes those who thought the block should have been longer or indefinite. I have to say, this is not an application of "consensus" that I find persuasive. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Note also that some opposers only did so on the gounds the restrictions are clearly ineffective - a message this block reduction fails to counter in any way whatsoever. The punitive/stale comments could not be more irrelevant - the sanctions have no such clause, and he was left under no illusion that they are binding when they were placed. If admins cannot block for breaking them when violations are brought to their notice, then what the hell are they actually for?. And note RD232 has even had the gall to imply Lankiveil was somehow wrong to block while the discussion here was ongoing, even though no such discussion is even required by the sanctions for such blatant violations like this. And let's not even pretend that had this been reported at the time, that we wouldn't have also seen all the same usual excuses - it was the other guy's fault, Delta does good work, Delta is a victim, it was a "minor" incident, etc, etc, etc. Delta has gone back to editing thanks to this reduction as if this incident never even happened, he's not made a single comment on it or even acknowledged it even occurred. We can all apparently go fish for some sort of explanation or some sign of regret for breaking his sanctions, failing to keep yet another promise he has made to the community for the second time in a month. The targetted user can go fish for an apology also it seems. I cannot think of a more contemptuous way for Delta to signal that he doesn't give a flying fuck to be honest, he clearly has the community's number on this one. And the hilarious thing is, these sanctions were placed in full knowledge that all of this was already the situation, but people thought that sanctions would do the trick inspite of this. But RD232 just apparently forgot to read up on what he was involving himself. Hence, the administration of these sanctions needs to be taken out of the purvey of those admins who do not seem to either know or care that Delta is fully justifiably no longer considered by the community to be just another editor, and the community does not expect these incidents to be treated as "minor" or for the sanctions to be undermined until they pretty much become irrelevant, almost a standing joke just like situation with the other famously unblockable unbannable editor, and we just regress to the situation we were in 2 years ago, as if he had never even been banned for a year, let alone all the rest. If we're not already there already. MickMacNee (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ban[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a disturbing tendency for people to rapidly escalate discussion of minor incidents into ban discussions. This must be squashed - it is highly detrimental to adequate discussion of minor incidents, and leads to needless repetition of old issues and much aggravation. Bans should normally be proposed separately, ideally on WP:AN rather than WP:ANI, especially where it's a long-term contributor who has previously been discussed at AN. Remember ANI is for incidents, not for long-term behaviour patterns. Rd232 talk 07:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's take that cat out of the sack: It's obvious that some people want Delta gone. So let's be frank and discuss a ban, shall we? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Support - He will continue to play his defenders like marks unless he's permanently put out to pasture. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Delta does good work around here, even if some people are too thick to realise that NFCC is non-negotiable. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 07:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    • OMG, the old "he does good work" nonsense. And apparently sanctions are negotiable? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Did I ever say his sanctions were? They're not. But to act on comments made three days ago which no one, including the target, complained about then, is punitive. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 07:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Yes, you're saying that "good work" override sanctions. And if you make the block indef, then it WILL be preventive rather than punitive. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
          • No, I'm not. I'm saying his good work means he should not be banned. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 07:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
            • Yes, you are in fact saying that "good work" overrides sanctions. He's to be blocked if he violates sanctions. He violates sanctions, and you don't want him blocked. Ergo, "good work overrides sanctions." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Whether you agree or not that Delta does "good work around here", that doesn't excuse his deplorable behavior. Despite numerous blocks (including one lasting a year), his behavior still hasn't changed and he continues his poor behavior. He was let back onto WP under the proviso that he refrain from very specific behavior. He has proven himself incapable of abiding by these restrictions three times this month alone. When is enough enough? — BQZip01 — talk 07:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose As an involved user in this discussion or with Delta, this subsection is extremely WP:POINTY: "Some people wants him out, let's kick him out". The block is puntative at most and preventive at least, the best to do is unblock him and watch him, if he returns with the same immediately come here and do not wait 10 days. ۞ Tbhotch & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 07:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
      • [inject]I basically DID come here as soon as I noticed it. If you'll note, I didn't have any contributions for the past week or so since I was on vacation without internet access (both a blessing and a curse). I noted it as soon as I could. Furthermore, I agree with Bugs that there isn't a statue of limitations on this subject. — BQZip01 — talk 07:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    • No, there are only two possible "best" options: (1) indefinite block, for permanent prevention; or (2) stop being hypocrites, and remove all sanctions. If you're unwilling to enforce the sanctions, then you have already de facto removed them, so you might as well make it official. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's pointy, so please don't link to "disruptive": Some claim it's a severe problem of personality, then he needs to be out. As it stands, the block is merely punitive which won't have any effect. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Make it permanent, and it will be preventive. You know what the sad part is? That this exact same discussion has occurred countless times here - and Beta/Delta always ends up doing things the way he wants to, with the bedside manner of a scorpion. He's to be avoided at all costs, his damage to wikipedia be hanged. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No way. Horologium (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Do you support lifting the sanctions? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
      • This is not a case of "if you don't want him banned, it means you don't support the sanctions". Don't put words into others' mouths. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 07:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There is a disturbing tendency for some people to try and shut down legitimate discussions. Anything regarding Delta is hardly minor. He has a very long and storied history on Wikipedia, and his long ban was a result of his uncivil behaviour among other things. He's continuing that which is an indication the discussion needs to happen again, since it's clear that the long vacation he had before didn't change his behaviour. Do we really need to play the back and forth game again until he pisses off enough of his supporters that we finally end up banning him again only for someone to have a change of heart a year and a half later?--Crossmr (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not desperately familiar with this, but I've done a little digging. The last time this user was blocked for civility issues was in December 2008 [2], which was just before a year-long ban for breaching this restriction relating to image tagging. It is impossible to overstate how much of an overreaction it normally is to seriously talk about banning for a single civility incident. It is very difficult to overstate how much of an overreaction it is to seriously talk about it here and now for this user - in primary reliance on this single incident. I'm happy to concede that it is possible that Delta should be banned ASAP, and if anyone wants to make a serious case to that effect with the necessary evidence, WP:AN is not far away. But to build a case based solely on what this thread started with is offensive and ridiculous; and frankly everyone seeking to do so should be a bit ashamed of themselves for acting like the archetypical ANI lynch mob. Rd232 talk 01:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Then you might want to dig more. Part of the problem that lead up to the banning was several threads being started on AN/I about betacommand's interaction with other users. Yes he was finally banned for violating his editing restriction, but there is a reason civility patrol is part of his restrictions now. One of the other problems in this situation, which makes the whole betacommand issue a poster child for what's broken with wikipedia is that were no end to the amount of administrators who wanted to come in and alter/remove blocks rather than deal with him. As the issue spiralled out of control administrators who had previously lept to his defense found themselves no longer backing him. He's already exhausted the community's patience and he was let in once again on a super duper pretty please ultra mega last chance, and here we are again. He's obviously learned nothing, and neither has the community. I expect the rest of his tenure to be more of the same, because all I'm seeing is more of the same. If he remotely wants to stay here, he needs to stay away from NFCC. It's done nothing but get him into trouble for years, the project carried on just fine while he was gone, and it will continue to do so. Wikipedia didn't get sued into oblivion, it didn't crumble down around us, and if he can't handle NFCC work politely and in the spirit of working in a community, frankly they don't need to be here. He's shown time and time again that this is an impossibility for him.--Crossmr (talk) 04:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
"He's obviously learned nothing..." - well he was block-free for 6 months from October until 18 May, in which time he made well over 10,000 edits [3]. Since 18 May, there is only the block arising from the current thread. For a contributor who was previously so problematic, that seems a decent record. PS If NFCC is such a particular problem for him, how come no topic ban? Rd232 talk 06:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Absence of a block is not proof that he's learned anything. It's proof that he didn't get blocked during that time. Many admins are loathe to block him even though they want to or know they should simply because they know it turns into a giant storm of garbage for days on end. We saw it for years previously. As we see here, even though he very clearly violated his restrictions many people insist the block be overturned, or that it should never have happened in the first place. If that was the case would you hold that up as evidence that he's learned something? And as for why there is no topic ban for NFCC? because last time around he just ended up flat-out banned finally. The only thing keeping him in the project before was some people's insistence that he was a special snowflake and that the project would go belly-up without him. Should he be cast out NFCC would have inevitably failed and Armageddon would have been upon us. I'm paraphrasing obviously, but as you can see during his absence none of that occurred. But if you do read up on the full history you'll find that the majority of his issues come from NFCC. Most of the civility complaints came from users he'd interacted with over NFCC issues. The editing restrictions often came from issues he'd had with bots and automated tools. He wasn't properly checking his edits and causing issues in articles, sometimes with NFCC, and of course opposition to this was sometimes met with further incivility.--Crossmr (talk) 08:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

As a previously passionate and prolific contributor, if I had to name THE one thing (out of many) which finally led to my irreparable disgust with Wikipedia, and finally my total abandonment of ever contributing here again, it would be behavior like BetaCommand's, and the community's limitless tolerance for it. For whatever that's worth... Dekkappai (talk) 06:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Delta repeatedly and blatantly violates his editing restrictions[edit]

and since RD232 asked me about his editing history during the last few months, on May 17th, he clearly violated his editing restrictions of 4 edits/minute by making 15 edits in a single minute, and 6 edits the minute after, that's 21 edits in 2 minutes. He then made 10 edits at 11:19 the same day, 10 at 11:17,

So no, he's violating editing restrictions, and being uncivil again. I don't think he's learned a thing despite his ability to dodge a block. He may not have gotten 40 edits over 10 minutes, but 21 in 2 minutes is clearly against what his restrictions indicate.
  • Oh, and on May 12, from 22:44-22:53, he made 53 edits,
  • from 22:35-22:43 he made 45 edits. so any way you slice that, that's over the 4 edits/minute rate that he's allowed. That's twice he's violated his editing restrictions (that I've found so far) and once that he's clearly violated he's civility restrictions (that I've found) and you want to claim he's learned something?
  • Not to be outdone, on the same day I find that he's made 44 edits at exactly 20:10. I don't know about anyone else..but that seems like more than 4 edits per minute to me..
  • 72 edits on the same day yet again from 6:14-6:23. Should I keep going or can we just nail this thing closed finally??
  • 6:05-6:13 56 edits, may 12 again. Banner day for him.

I'm refactoring this into a list for readability.--Crossmr (talk) 08:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC) This all happened 2 days before he proposed the task at the VP as noted in the above discussion, and frankly I'm tired of counting editing violations, May 12 just goes on and on, you could easily find over a dozen times that he violated them.--Crossmr (talk) 09:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

If today were 12 or 13 May, then I would have no hesitation in blocking. However, given the section immediately preceding this one there would be no chance of consensus supporting any block for them today. I think at this point we have to say that Delta will not be blocked for any infractions or alleged infractions made before his latest unblock, regardless of merit or otherwise. Personally I feel that nobody who acts in the way that Delta does can be a net positive to the project, but others feel differently and we have to work with consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 10:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Were it anyone else the key would have been thrown away long ago, but even though it is not May 12, or 13th, this is simply just more evidence of on-going and very long-term behaviour issues that simply have not rectified themselves over the years. I'm not seeking a block for a single disruptive incident, I'm suggesting the ban be reinstated for being an utter failure of yet another super duper extra mega ultra right down to the wire pretty please last chance.--Crossmr (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes I agree with you that he has had more than enough last chances. If he violates again (although I sadly think it's more likely to be when than if) then I'm all for a ban, but until that time then I'm not going to reblock for offences prior to the most recent unblock. Thryduulf (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I may not be in a position to be Delta's official biographer, but I do know that Delta has already been blocked (on 18 May) for these infractions. However much Delta has pissed people off in the past, and disrespected or tested the limits of sanctions, it remains the case that this lynch mob behaviour is ridiculous. For those in cheap seats if you think a ban of Delta can be justified, then start a new thread at WP:AN, providing coherent, well-argued, well-evidenced justification. Rd232 talk 14:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Twinkle Twinkle Little Script... How I wonder where you went?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Not an admin issue. If you're having problems with Twinkle, please see WT:Twinkle.DoRD (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Any one know why Twinkle is not doing its thing? I tried to use it on Vandalism but it aint there! The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Nor on welcome templates. I think this may be due to the ongoing merge with t'other script because the dialogs are showing up in a different design also. - Sitush (talk) 00:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the best place to raise problems with this is, either https://github.com/azatoth/twinkle or Wikipedia talk:Twinkle. I've also given AzaToth (talk · contribs) a shout on their talk.  Chzz  ►  01:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I've had an on again off again issue with this for the past few hours. The boxes will disappear for a few minutes and then come back Noformation Talk 01:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I dont understand why we're starting to move tools like Twinkle off Wikimedia onto sites like github.com. I ran into another tool that as doing same thing recently. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I had problems nominating articles for deletion with it. It only completes some of the steps at random. It will add the article to the log for instance, or notify the article's creator, but not do the other steps. Pretty weird, because it worked fine some days ago. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The Resident Anthropologist, I think that's a non-issue, to be honest; any problems raised on WT:TW should get a response, so the 'github' bug logging can just be viewed as another option. For coders, storing the code, docs, bugs and other stuff elsewhere is quite justifiable, as other sites can provide resources that are helpful with specific technical issues - obviously, as long as the on-wiki stuff is sufficient for the wikipedia needs.  Chzz  ►  03:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm also having issues. Twinkle seems to be down completely with no response to the github bug report in 8 hours. Get ready for a huge backup at WP:NPP. N419BH 05:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I unchecked, saved and rechecked and saved the twinkle setting in preferences and it reappeared. Jarkeld (talk) 05:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is relevant or not, but I seem to recall a box at the bottom of the Gadgets page that was something like "Twinkle Developer" and this box is now gone. Also, I am unable to tag pages for the past few hours, I keep getting the error "You must select at least one tag!" regardless of how many tags I selected and I've been having rollback errors on and off all day Noformation Talk 05:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Twinkle has been updated. The new version was deployed in the early hours of this morning (UTC). Please direct commentary to Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle. Skomorokh 12:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Post by dubiously blocked user at WP:IAR[edit]

See this diff. The IP admits that they're a formerly blocked user, but not which one. In my view, it isn't clear-cut enough for WP:AIV, so I figured I'd bring it here for wider attention. elektrikSHOOS 03:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The revert was appropriate. However since that was the only edit, I'd consider it to be simply vandalism, and not worry about the self-promotion of being blocked. Unless they are performing vandalism, there isn't much to be gained by a AIV. Tiggerjay (talk) 07:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

User:SDPatrolBot Blocked because of repeat warnings getting out of control[edit]

I blocked the bot because it's getting out of control with the repeat warnings and looking through the history it looks like it has a problem with that overall (sticking on a user and reverting all their speedy removals, and then warning them). This has led to issues like UserWicklypickle where the user got 38 warnings in an hour (the article in that case did get deleted) or the more recent User:Tsuchiya Hikaru where the articles were actually good and all he's getting is all these warnings. It is clear that this is somewhat intended behavior but I think the damage being done by it is incredibly large especially for new users (and especially for issues like this when the tags were bad, there is no doubt this is scaring people away). I really think before it gets unblocked we need to get a fail safe in here that limits the amount of warnings/reverts it does (and maybe just dumps it into a noticeboard or something to have a human look at

Obviously any admin is free to undo me if they think it's a bad block and I understand the need to watch for these things but I think the damage that is being caused by this behavior is considerably less then the damage being done by the speedy deletion template being left off for a short bit (especially if we have a noticeboard dump or something). James of UR (talk) 08:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Necessary block, unfortunately, but is there anything that needs to be done aside from throttling the number of warnings per editor per time period? Skomorokh 09:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Personally I think the biggest thing is the throttle but trying to find an "escape hatch" for the bot may be good too if we are worried pages won't get looked at because of the removal. I think that concern is understandable even if I have a feeling the articles would get seen in relatively the same amount of time (we actually have a category for recently removed speedies I believe). Perhaps posting on AIV or something asking for a review (preferably with a note that a speedy review with deletion or denial being preferred over a block) credit to User:Courcelles for this suggestion James of UR (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Is this sort of flood common? From what I can see, the bot was behaving as it was made to do. Pickle got 38 warnings because he removed the speedy deletion template 38 times (I didn't manually count, I'm just going by the history). Hikaru's talk page was already flooded with deletion notices because another user decided to CSD dozens of his articles all at once; the bot was just doing business as usual here as well. Still, if there is a way to get the bot to limit itself to a certain number of messages per hour, and maybe make the last notice more "aggressive" than the others, that would be good. Soap 13:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Since continued removal of db tags is a blockable offense, why doesn't the bot simply report repeat offenders to WP:AIV? (Perhaps with an attached note, or in a designated "bot-reported" section like the one at WP:UAA.) It always struck me as how basic this bot was in its warning functions. elektrikSHOOS 13:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Right... I don't really think ANI was the right place for this, or that blocking the bot was entirely appropriate. Anyway, I've spent most of my day getting the bot to work within your suggestions (which seem mostly reasonable, but I would have been happier doing this if it had simply been discussed at my talk page). I've allowed a lot of the controls to be onwiki, see User:SDPatrolBot/configuration, this will allow you lot to squabble over the specifics without having to bother me ;). I would appreciate if the bot was unblocked now. It may get off to a bit of a bumpy start, since I've obviously been unable to test the bot with it blocked. - Kingpin13 (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
As it seems to be fixed, and the reporting to AIV has been speedy approved by a BAG member, I unblocked. FWIW I agree that a block might have been overkill, but in this case there was no soft-stop option provided, so it seems the reasonable approach. --Errant (chat!) 9:00 am, Today (UTC−5)
Thanks. I'll be starting it out slow, to allow me to fix any errors with the new version without causing a lot of harm. - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you...[edit]

Resolved: User blocked for username policy violation - Happysailor (Talk) 13:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

...keep an eye out for this account, Accountadmin (talk · contribs) please? I want another opinion on if it's a vandalbot. Island Monkey talk the talk 13:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It breaks the username policy anyway - Happysailor (Talk) 13:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
User blocked by User:Lectonar - Happysailor (Talk) 13:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

87.244.124.223[edit]

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

This user appears to be the same person as

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

who was blocked before for vandalism.

Here is this user's latest unconstructive edit, which looks very similar to the unconstructive edits which got the other account blocked.

Thank you. Tommyjb Talk! (13:58, 30 May 2011)

Update: This user has continued vandalising Alternative cancer treatments, and is now vandalising my own pages (1, 2, 3). Tommyjb Talk! (15:12, 30 May 2011)
If it's likely to be uncontroversial, you can also report the IP at WP:AIV. (In most cases, that's actually the preferred route.) That may also move slightly quicker, depending on which admins are watching it. elektrikSHOOS 15:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. From looking at that page, I see that another user has reported 87.244.124.223 within the past few minutes. Tommyjb Talk! (15:47, 30 May 2011)
IP blocked, the article is now semi protected for two weeks. MLauba (Talk) 15:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

User:FuFoFuEd[edit]

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

I added a book source to Star (Unix) and today a "new" editor named FuFoFuEd began trying to add a date qualifier [4] [5] which isn't backed up by reliable sources in order to downplay the utility being the fastest known tar implementation. It is pretty clear from this editor's contributions he isn't a "new editor" and rather than edit war with a sockpuppet, I'm reporting this here. A quick search also turned up several related discussions, including an AN/I discussion and related MfD, along with a stale SPI.

There are already major problems at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star (Unix) with cross-wiki harassment/wikihounding of Jörg Schilling (User:Schily) which appears to have begun off-wiki, spreading to the German Wikipedia, and now showing up here on the English Wikipedia. With the creation date of the FuFoFuEd account, it is quite likely related to this. Given that Schilling is a very well known software developer and somewhat high profile, with the cross-wiki aspects of this with what I found on the German Wikipedia and now what has spread to the English Wikipedia, I'm tempted to contact the WMF if this continues. No one should ever have to put up with being harassed and persecuted/wikihounded. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat[edit]

Hi, in a dispute with an ip with regards to edits made to Pacers–Pistons brawl‎. He originally made an unsourced edit to which I reverted. I explained to him/her about rules like WP:V and WP:OR. In his/her reply on my talk page, he/she made a legal threat, see [6]. Because of that, I am asking an admin to look into this and perhaps block the offender. Thanks.—Chris!c/t 19:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Also he/she made several personal attacks, calling me an "ass" and lazy.[7]Chris!c/t 19:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Hi, Chris. When you begin a discussion about an editor, you should always notify the editor and provide him or her with a link to this page so they know exactly where the discussion is occurring. This is especially important for an IP user who may have no knowledge of how Wikipedia works. I've added a notification to the IP's talk page. In the future, you can simply add {{subst:ANI-notice}} --~~~~ to the editor's talk page. Ignore the above - I was having a peabrain moment. --NellieBly (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Anyone?—Chris!c/t 21:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 Done Blocked the IP address for this threat. GorillaWarfare talkcontribs 22:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The user has circumvented the block by hopping over to 24.209.249.23 (talk · contribs), and continues to attack Chris at Pacers–Pistons brawl and User talk:Chrishmt0423. Perhaps semi-protection is needed? —LOL T/C 17:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it is block evasion, but I've blocked the second IP per the legal threat block as I don't see any retraction of the threat. S.G.(GH) ping! 18:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

On the conduct of User:Kumaripriya[edit]

I wish to bring to your notice the conduct of User:Kumaripriya who has been indulging in POV-pushing and personal attacks on Wikipedia. User:Kumaripriya had previously removed a well sourced and well-written section on "Controversies" in Devasahayam Pillai article. When I reverted User:Kumaripriya's edits and restored the cleanest and most neutral version, Kumaripriya responded by labelling us "anti-christian fanatic elements".

User:KUmaripriya has also been passing extremely objectionable comments in User:Fayenatic London's talk page.

Some samples:

Invoking a Wikipedian's religious sentiments. By the way, does this statement mean that all non-Christians are prejudical

Kindly go and study sincerely the Christian martyr's history, without any prejudice,if you are a Christian before attempting to poke your nose!

Now, this is a blunt justification of POV-pushing

This is a page written about a Christian martyr. It has no place for character assassination, whatsoever

You might also observe here that User:Kumaripriya has been indulging in personal attacks against a Wikipedian with a good reputation for neutrality. It also appears that Kumaripriya has also been labelling people as "infidels", etc.- The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 17:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You must notify any user discussed here. I've gone ahead and done that now, provided my cheap Internet connection will allow the edit through. elektrikSHOOS 18:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I've given a warning about the language they've been using and trying to block people of other religions from editing a page. The section above the ANI warning on their talk page is about this editor edit warring on another page, so some wider scrutiny of their edits may be in order. Fences&Windows 21:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
It'd be good to verify the Daily Pioneer source that is the centre of the dispute. I tried to find it in the Wayback Machine, but couldn't. It's mirrored at [8], different date to the mirror you're using now, and without all the typos. Fences&Windows 22:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

More personal attacks from Anglo Pyramidologist[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Anglo Pyramidologist has been blocked indefinitely, with talk page access disabled. Chester Markel (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Anglo Pyramidologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who racked up a remarkable 4 blocks in April for personal attacks, is carrying on where he left off with 'the constant vandalism by the "anti-fascists/anti-BNPer's/far left wingers" (Snowded, multiculturalist etc)' and 'quite clearly they were added by a biased anti-BNPer who is deceitfull linking to stuff that cannot even be accessed and verified'. I think it might be time for another enforced wikibreak? Thanks. 2 lines of K303 12:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

- Vandalism on the BNP page was already posted here less than 1 week ago and i had several admins agree with me that there are disrputive users on the BNP page. I've not personally attacked anyone, all i've tried to do is work with other users in improving the BNP article (yet anti-fascists/far-leftists etc keep vandalising it/reverting edits). Looks like you are just starting up trouble. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

-Please see multiculturalist's history page where he has numerous warnings about vandalising/making disruptive edits to the BNP page. This includes one edit/comment he left calling all BNP members "nazis" - which he recieved a warning on his talk page for. Also look at his name. Do you really think someone with the name 'multiculturalist' is going to not be baised against the BNP (a nationalist party who oppose multiculturalism and immigration?). Despite having 6 or 7 warnings about disruptive edits/vandalism to the BNP page he has never been banned from making further edits. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Anglo, this isn't far from what I've blocked you for before. Assigning epithets to other users is not going to go over well, nor is focusing so intensely upon their possible motives for editing. Concentrate only on content. You'll find things a lot easier that way. lifebaka++ 14:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Labelling and pigeonholing other editors is part of the problem, not part of the solution. bobrayner (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Not epithets, you can view the user pages mentioned where they self label themselves as 'anti-fascists', 'socialists' etc. I don't see how by pointing this out is personal attacks. The fact is there are a whole load of self admitted BNP haters (view their own pages) who have far-left socialist etc views yet they are allowed all over the BNP page. There are clearly problems with neutrality. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

In the same way that you self-label as a British Nationalist and a BNP-supporter? Please take a look at WP:COI. You also seem to not understand WP:RS, per this edit. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
AP also needs to look up the Wikipedia definition of vandalism. Even if the allegations about POV and biased editing were true (just for the sake of argument, I am not saying it is as I have not looked into the matter), that kind of editing does still not constitute vandalism. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

- As i have pointed out view the user 'multiculturalist's page where he has had repeated warnings for vandalism. For the past few weeks on the talk page he has been calling BNP Nazis/racists for which he was reported and recieved warnings. I'm only on the BNP talk page to get the ideology box updated. Currently it is incorrect. The BNP are not fascist or white nationalists. If they were i wouldn't have joined them. The ideology box is insulting to all current BNP members/supporters, its biased and incorrect, and that is why i want it to be updated. Please note: it was me who got the 'holocaust denial' tag removed from the BNP ideology box about a month or so back. I then recieved a message by a mod apologizing that it had been up there for many months when it was a false claim added by an anti-BNPer as a smear. My interest in the BNP article is merely to make it neutral and reflective of the party and their position/policies. If it wasn't for me the holocaust denial smear tag would still be up. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

"While parties such as the National Front or British National Party have attempted to appropriate national symbols to their primarily racist cause..." "British national sentiment". British Journal of Political Science. 29 (01). 1999. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
And, for the record, "Since 1999, under the leadership of Nick Griffin, the BNP has made attempts to modernize and has tried to conceal its more esoteric ideology, such as holocaust denial..." "White Backlash, 'Unfairness' and Justifications of British National Party (BNP) Support". Ethnicities. 10 (1): 77–99. 2010. Serpent's Choice (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

- Holocaust denial has never been a policy or position of the BNP. This is why it was removed from the ideology tag box a month or so back. What personal members believe or write is irrelevant to the position and policy of the party. Several Conservative MEP's for example are personally eurosceptics, but you would have to be mad to then post or claim the position or policy of the Conservatives was anti-eu. We have had problems on the BNP page before where people were linked to facebook posts and other nonsense which has nothing to do with the policies of position of the BNP. I also note in the last week these inappopirate facebook links were removed by an admin (thanks to me again). Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

If Sarek or Serpent's Choice were referencing Facebook, your argument might have merit, but they were quoting published works. Anglo Pyramidologist, if your purpose is to whitewash (no pun intended) topics related to BNP, you may as well move on. As long as there are reliable sources supporting what's in the article, it's going to stay, whether or not it conflicts with your personal beliefs. You very clearly have a conflict of interest with these subjects. -- Atama 19:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see my talk page. I have several users agreeing with me that the BNP ideology box needs to be updated. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 23:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Having checked I can see one, along with the IP with who you edit warred. We also have the same pattern of false claims as before (ANI are on my side when a subject has just been mentioned). Personally I can't see this editor ever changing and it might be an idea to try a topic ban for a period as opposed to escalating blocks --Snowded TALK 05:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

- Yet it is you snowded who is attacking anyone or their edits on the BNP article. You are a self-labelled "anti-fascist" on your userpage, and anyone who wants to make the BNP article more neutral you call a pro-BNP supporter, while multiculturalist calls them nazis or racists. Looking at your history on the BNP article in the last month shows you have made no contributions, just about 20-30 reverts of other peoples content. I;m not sure what your obsession is with the BNP. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Mods can also take note that snowded stalks my contributions. In the past view days he has posted on 2 or 3 articles i set up and just attacked them. There is no way he would have found those article randomly, he is just stalking my posted articles and attacking them to wind me up. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Indent your posts, please. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
AP, I expect more than one person watches your edits. You've shown no evidence that he is hounding you. Your talk page does show one user who seems to share your political sympathies, not surprising he agrees with you. I'm not sure which articles you claim Snowded is 'just attacking'. I found White Amazon Indians, a not very good article where he added a notability tag, but I don't see that as an attack (and he didn't add it to White Aethiopians which should be 'Ethiopians' by the way, looking at the sources). In fact,he's only edite 6 articles that you have edited, and only one article that you created, not '2 or 3' if by 'i set up' you mean created. Dougweller (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

- Yes, nonsurprisngly both articles concerning white people or race (those are the only he commented on mine). Also viewing Snowded's history shows he only edits the unite against fascism page, the BNP or english defense league. Snowded seems to have an very unhealthy obsessesion with race + and racial topics. I wouldn't mind if he contributed to helping these pages, but he seems to have a political agenda and just reverts peoples edits. Like i said view the BNP article and Snowded's history on it, he's never contributed all he's ever done is revert peoples contributions or criticise posters he thinks are pro-BNP. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That is far from the truth. See Snowded's Top Namespace Edits. His top three articles are Knowledge management, Philosophy and Wales. None of his top hundred seem to be about race, and only four or five about fascism. He is not the editor with a "very unhealthy obsessesion with race + and racial topics". RolandR (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Do I hear a WP:BOOMERANG in flight? Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
You mean this? --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
A classic case of the pot calling the kettle black, except in this case the kettle's one of those shiny new chrome ones. GiantSnowman 22:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

- The difference is I add articles or information and contribute on race based or political pages, in contrast Snowded does not contribute, he only picks debates with people who don't hold his far-left wing views and then starts to label them (like multiculturalist) - which might i add is ironically rather fascist. To see a typical example of this view the unite against fascism talk page. Or if you view the BNP history page you will see Snowded has never contributed. All he has ever done is revert people's edits and he calls other users 'pro-BNP' who he doesn't agree with (see the talk page). While the user multiculturalist labels people who want to make the article more neutral as nazis (again view the talk page and his own talk page where he got several warnings). At the end of the day you have to ask why you are here. I'm here to improve articles or add articles, and i continuelly seek to improve the BNP page. Snowded in contrast is only on the BNP page to stop it being updated because he has a biased political motives and views. Again you only have to view the BNP talk page to see Snowded's biased posts against the BNP, yet he never has recieved a warning. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Anglo Pyramidologist, you seem to be under the misapprehesion that there is something wrong with being biased against the BNP. There isn't, in the same way that there is nothing wrong with being biased against the clap. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks all. Anglo - I monitor a series of articles associated with the far right in order to prevent them being used as propaganda machines. I'm not the only editor to do that and its all a part of maintaining a NPOV. You have been constantly asked to provide references for your assertions, and in the main all we get are BNP statements and photographs of people at BNP events. Those are not reliable sources. Oh and yes, given your track record I do from time to time check out other articles you are editing. --Snowded TALK 07:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I find it quite annoying, that Anglo continues to refuse to indent his posts. GoodDay (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

- what normal people use wikipedia to 'track the far right' and stop them becomming 'propaganda machines'? You self-admit you have a political agenda which when it comes to the BNP article is a huge problem and you have no interest in improving the article. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

'there is nothing wrong with being biased against the clap' , of course not however the problem is becomming obsessed and sitting all day on those wiki articles. Snowded sits all day on the BNP article reverting peoples edits. Given the fact he openly admits he has a political agenda against the BNP and other far-right groups then i think he should be removed from the article or atleast get reviewed. Snowded has no good intentions with the BNP article, he's only on it because he hates them. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I'll repeat what GoodDay said, please indent your posts. Secondly, what Snowded actually said is that he wants to keep the BNP page as fair and neutral as possible - stop trying to twist his words to satisfy your own agenda. GiantSnowman 14:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Many editors track subject areas that interest them Anglo, not sure if they are "normal people" or not but then I wouldn't like to site in judgement. What matters is if they follow wikipedia rules in the way they edit. You have supplied no diffs to support your various allegations here. You have a track record] of blocks of personal attacks and harassment, and from your comments above you haven't learnt from them. --Snowded TALK 14:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

- And you have a personal history of labelling/abusing/smearing people on the BNP talk page (mods feel free to take a look). Anyone who doesn't agree with your personal political views you call a BNP 'sympathiser' or 'pro-BNP' while multiculturalist calls them 'nazis'. If anyone should be blocked it is you. The fact you also above admitted you are only on the BNP page to 'patrol right winger posters' further reveals your biased political agenda. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Diffs please Anglo --Snowded TALK 18:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

'Many editors track subject areas that interest them Anglo' - so what is your obsession with the BNP, a party you openly admit you oppose and do not support? Is it normal for people to be obsessed with things they oppose? Its seems to be deep insecurity. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The BNP are obsessed by immigration, something they oppose. I guess they're all deeply insecure as well, then... GiantSnowman 17:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Another lie. Yawn. In there last 3 manifesto's out of 80+ pages only 2 pages are on immigration policy. The conservatives, ukip and labour on theirs covered tens more. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Will you PLEASE indent your posts, properly? GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This section is pointless as its clear my edits regarding the BNP ideology box is never going to be improved. I've wasted enough time with this. The biased far-leftists/UAF/communists/anti-BNPer's/labour supporters can continue to control the BNP article. Truth is truth, most people i know who have read the wiki article on BNP acknowledge that it is a biased piece of propaganda written from a far left anti-BNP perspective. Even more embarrasing is its sources (facebook and other smear sources) The article doesn't fool anyone. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, if most people you know are, like you, supporters of the BNP, then its is not surprising that they agree with your negative opinion of this objective account. Most people I know think that the BNP are lower than vermin, and have a d8fferent opinion of the article. RolandR (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Even your average vermin knows to indent its posts properly. It's ironic that AP's posts continue to lean to the left. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
As AP has self-identified as a BNP member or suporter, these two comments approach being a personal attack.
Roland and Bugs, you're both better than that. Please don't do that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I assume the reason he won't indent is just to be obstinate. So I don't see any issue with ribbing him about it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
As i claimed above i'm no longer posting/editing on the BNP article. I tried all i could to get the changes i proposed implemented, but no one wants to update the BNP page more neutrally. Every other nationalist party on wikipedia are not smeared as fascists or white nationalists. What their articles state is that the media label them this, but that they themselves deny the labels as smears. Please see Jobbik. Why can't the BNP page be like Jobbik's and more neutral? Please view the jobbik page open paragraph if you don't understand. Basically the BNP page should open like theirs i.e that their opponents and media call them fascists but that they deny this as a smear. Why is this on every other nationalist page but not the BNP? I would like an admin to answer.Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
The answer is quite simple Anglo Pyramidologist: The BNP are fascists. The only people who seem to think otherwise are their supporters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Since when are political parties free from criticism though? In the United States (specifically Florida), where Wiki's servers are located, it's certainly not the case. I am very biased against BNP of course, but I mean some of the company they keep (they apparently also have a relationship with Germany's National Democratic Party who I dislike as well for obvious reasons) makes it so I cannot not be biased against them (though in editing the article I would have to be). This bit right here btw: "Truth is truth" The overwhelming view among the RSs about BNP is that they are fascists or at the very least white nationalists, and so that's how you have to treat it in the article. Wikipedia's about verifiablility, not one's version of the truth, and you should not go against that just because you don't like the article's content. Remember that we are not required, and afaik, not supposed to basically change the info the RSs themselves put out just because we think it will make the article more neutral, rather we find info from the RSs and use it according to the weight of the views. The idea is that so long as we follow the sources as closely as we can, we have maintained neutrality as best we can (because the sources don't have to maintain an NPOV etc etc). Also, if the concensus is against your changes, there's really not much you can do except try a better policy-based argument. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 02:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
AP continually refers to the political ideology (real or imagined) of people who disagree with him over the characterisation of the BNP, a party he claims to support. The party derives from English fascism, its leaders celebrated Hitler's birthday while wearing SS uniforms, they denied the holocaust and now allow non-white members after losing a court case. AP's claim that anyone who opposes them, including the Conservatives, are far left is offensive. AP should rely on arguments rather than personal attacks. TFD (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Seen through their distorted prism, it would figure that most of the British population would qualify as "far left". It's also important to keep in mind that politicians with hate messages (like Hitler's) can be ignored but with perilous consequences. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Typical distortion/lies above from someone who clearly has no idea about the history of the BNP. Briefly to correct the lies: When the BNP formed in 1982, Tyndall was already a small figure of the party and by that time there were no fascist or extremist links to the BNP. Only several years later Richmond Edmonds took over, and later Nick Griffin. You are confusing the national front to the British National Party. Two completely different parties. Furthermore you are also confusing personal ideologies or backgrounds of prominent members with the party policies and stance. Both are different things - as i have already stated. The conservative party for example have MEP'S who are personally eurosceptic and want to leave the EU, yet that is not a policy or stance of the conservative party (instead its BNP's & UKIP's only). Politicians or party members are entitled to have personal views not aligned to the party. Next lie: Holocaust denial. Again holocaust denial has never been a position or policy of the BNP (or even NF). That Nick Griffin once believed in it 20-30 years ago is irrelevant. Peter Mandelson of the labour party used to believe in communism and even served in the Young Communist League. Does that make all labour party members automatically communists? Third lie posted above is about BNP's membership & non-whites. On the contrary the BNP have worked with orthodox jews, egyptian copts, sikhs and hindus since 2001. BNP have never been a racist party and infact poll well in elections in sikh and hindu areas. The fact the membership exluded non-whites up to 2009 joining is not either racist. The National Black Police Association (United Kingdom) only accepts black or non-white members. Whites cannot join it. Why don't the anti-BNPer's then criticise all the black organisations that refuse to accept whites? The answer is because they are anti-white racists, if you view The Four Deuces comments over the BNP talk page his leukophobia and racism against white people is all over the place. What a nerve he calls me biased or personally attacking, when above rant against BNP also breaks wikipedia stance on neutrality and is nothing more than a paragraph of lies and distortions/smears against the BNP. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
...and for that tirade I have indef blocked Anglo Pyramidolgist, as making personal attacks. Review welcome. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
An indefinite block just for the comments is excessive - six months might be more appropriate. However, given new checkuser information an indefinite block for abusive sockpuppetry is justified, according to usual Wikipedia practices. Chester Markel (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
"Leukophobia"? Fear of "white cells", perhaps? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Anglo socking? I don't believe it. Perhaps those are his brother's socks. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
White socks, presumably ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
In contrast with the great majority of Britishers, who he would presumably claim wear Red socks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Just re-reading the discussion above, I'm astounded by the suggestion that Sikhs and Hindus vote BNP - the BNP gets support in such areas (mainly in the less wealthy north of England) precisely because the local racists don't like the Sikhs and Hindus -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
That was fun. Do a lot of fellows with such... interesting ideologies come through this spot? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 19:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Erlandinho, edit-warring and frequent inappropriate genre changes against consensus despite repeated warnings[edit]

Erlandinho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is what many in the music wikiproject refer to as a "genre troll". They have a long (well over two year history) of picking a band and going through and changing the genres on every song and album. Often they will do this while deleting a hidden message stating to "seek consensus on the talk page before changing genres" (the reason for this being that the current genres are already the result of an edit war that led to a long winded discussion). Despite general consensus being against the use of Allmusic for selecting genres, this user insists on using it,[9] sometimes as the end-all-be-all of sources on genres.[10] They have edit-warred on a number of topics to attempt to insert or remove genres. By the third revert, they occasionally add a requested source, but it is often allmusic as well.[11][12][13][14] The user also has a habit of being told to stop, disappearing for some time, then showing up and taking another shot at it.[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]

This behaviour is annoying to say the least. The user has been at it for two years now with no signs of stopping, despite a talk page filled with warnings from multiple users.[23] Personally, I'd like to see this user banned from changing genres. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The 90% of the generes that I changed had a reliable sources, and the others (10%) also had no . Erlandinho (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
You have been told and warned many times not to change genres without discussing it on the talk page, and to not rely on allmusic as a source for genres (allmusic CAN be used, however, as a source for bios). Yet still, you respond by reverting and using edit summaries such as "go home",[24] "accept it"[25] and "fuck u".[26] - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban on changing music genres. Sample uncivil edit summary from three days ago. We don't need genre warriors like this, particularly when they use no or poor sources. Fences&Windows 22:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ghostofnemo[edit]

Ghostofnemo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has a long history of disruptive editing regarding 9/11 conspiracy theories. For the past year or so, he's been tenditiously pushing for two changes to the article:

  1. Inclusion of a petition by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
  2. Inclusion of a section on Building 7.

Regardless of the merits of these changes, both have been discussed numerous times and have never gained consensus.

Regarding the first change, Ghostofnemo forum shopped at the Fringe theories noticeboard, Neutral point of view noticeboard, the Neutral point of view noticeboard talk page and also tried to change our policy on WP:OR and then WP:Disruptive editing to make it easier to implement his changes. During these discussions, Ghostofnemo exhibited an extreme case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU:

Regarding the second change (inclusion of a section on Building 7), three times he's tried to add it to the article:

Here's the thing that gets me. Yesterday, he asks on the article talk page why his change was reverted.[30] He should know full well why. He was an active participant in the last discussion about it[31][32][33][34][35][36] yet again demonstrating a severe case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Here's a link to the full archived discussion.[37]

Ghostofnemo has been warned regarding the 9/11 discretionary sanctions.[38] He stopped editing the article for a while, but he's back and exhibiting the same problematic behavior as before.

I note that Ghostofnemu has been reported to ANI twice before.[39][40]

To cut to the chase, he contributes virtually nothing to our 9/11 conspiracy theories topic space so at the very minimum, I'd like a topic ban on Ghostofnemo regarding 9/11 conspiracy theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ghostofnemu has been notified of this discussion.[41] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Procedural note: You say he participated in the discussions and has been warned. Each statement has a cite, but the cite is the same in each case, pointing to the warning. Can you provide the cite of the participation in the discussion?--SPhilbrickT 20:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Sphilbrick: Sorry about that. I posted the wrong link. It should now be fixed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to attempt a discussion with the editor on their talk page. We'll see how it goes.--SPhilbrickT 22:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I was going to suggest WP:AE as a better location than here if Sphilbrick isn't successful. NW (Talk) 23:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I could actually duplicate this report in a topic area that is not under an arbitration decision. GoN has habitually NOTHEARDIT, used OR to make a point, and forum shopped. From experience, other editors have tried to take him in and improve his editing. They stop being nice when their efforts were met with the behavior being repeated. GoN was made aware of the topic area being under a decision a long time ago and has some how gotten away with it. And I believe he will do it again in any other topic area. I would love to see him respond positively to criticism from a neutral mentor. He has had his chances so hopefully Sphilbrick's approach will actually work. Best of luck to GoN but his hardheadedness needs to come to an end. But this comment is not needed because I bet it will happen again. Hope I am wrong.Cptnono (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Care to provide us with some examples, Cptnono? You know, where I posted something completely inappropriate into an article and someone removed it because it was clearly either POV, poorly sourced or irrelevant to the article, and I stubbornly kept reinserting it as an act of vandalism. Be sure NOT to include any examples where NPOV, well sourced, highly relevant material I contributed was deleted for dubious reasons or for no reason at all. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Large number of aparrent copy-paste page moves; possible copyright concerns[edit]

This is why we need more people at WP:NPP. Patrolling from the back of the backlog reveals this extensive issue that's been on the Wiki since May 1. It appears as though Looc9 (talk · contribs) began removing the plot summaries from Pretty little liars into separate articles on each individual book: Pretty Little Liars (book), Flawless (book), and Perfect (book). Steamroller Assault (talk · contribs) discovered the plot summary of the first one was possibly copyrighted, deleted it, and warned Looc9. The user hasn't contributed since. A google search of the text reveals several hits on various websites. I'm not sure if these are all mirrors or if one is the original copyrighted source but either way a whole lot more is going on here than I can accomplish, and furthermore I have not fixed a cut-and-paste page move before and don't know how. I'll try and figure it out in the interim but the copyright issues deeply concern me. N419BH 17:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

My God, the revision history of Pretty Little Liars is certainly a mess. In addition to the problems noted above (for which my personal recommedation would be a merge back to the main article and a copyright review), I checked the section on Unbelievable in the main article and found that it's a copy/paste of this Amazon "review", dated 27 May 2008 and introduced into the article here, only a couple of months ago, though there are different plot summaries earlier in the article's history with which it could presumably be replaced. It's all too complex for me at the moment; but it would certainly be a good idea for some actual adults to monitor these sorts of articles, which obviously are largely written and "maintained" by children. Deor (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, at the very least we need to merge the first three books back into the main article, which will require admin intervention. The problem with all this is these plot summaries are everywhere on blogs and amazon, and it seems as though most are likely old revisions of our wiki pages, copied without attribution. I'm still trying to sort out the mess and figure out what to do with everything. I think it's highly likely that these were originally copy-pastes from somewhere, they read like teaser-adverts for the book, not regular plot summaries. But there's so much vandalism on the edit history that finding out for sure is a near impossible task. N419BH 18:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Continuing to investigate, it looks like the copyright concerns are mostly a red herring. It appears as though people are copying text from here into their own personal blogs/facebooks/fansites/etc. without attribution which makes sorting out the mess that much harder. I've proposed all three articles for merger back into the main article, but I'd like to get an admin opinion or two here before actually doing it. I've also undone the copyright deletion by Steamroller Assault as it looks like we are the original text, not the facebook page he references. What a mess. N419BH 19:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. I support the merger of these articles, but I think we may as well be bold and simply turn the book articles into redirects to Pretty Little Liars, as there is really nothing worth saving (no references, no critical reception, etc.). While I now understand that the plot summaries for the individual books were lifted from the main article, which originated prior to the blogs and reviews I found, it's way too duckish for me. I have a hard time believing that much of this book jacket text was originally published here. In addition, Pretty Little Liars is filled to the brim with spam references (direct links to booksellers), and needs a complete overhaul. Steamroller Assault (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
The spinoffs by Looc9 appear to have started as unattributed copies from Pretty Little Liars. I can fix the attribution with dummy edits and {{Copied}}s if there's anything worth merging back, but it would be easier and cleaner to speedy delete as G12 and recreate the redirects if desired. Perfect (book) has some expansion of its Plot section, but Pretty Little Liars (book) and