Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive720

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Abusive email[edit]

Resolved: Ttbddy has been indeffed by Floquenbeam -FASTILY (TALK) 00:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I've received a nasty anti-Semitic email from Ttbddy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) so can they please be hard-blocked ASAP? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTagNot-content─╢ 00:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Care to share it to us? Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 00:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Blocked with no email or talk page access. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) User notified, as is required, at User talk:Ttbddy. As the user has no on-wiki edits (or deleted contributions) whatsoever, it's not clear to me there's anything actionable here. (I do see I've been pre-empted by Flo; c'est la vie.)  Frank  |  talk  00:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
TT has a stalker using email to send abusive emails. They don't edit. Best to WP:DENY --Errant (chat!) 08:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I had a similar problem a while back which actually caused the creation of the e-mail block function. Have we sought out the technical information to keep this individual at bay?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
WP:DENY would strongly suggest that bringing this to the highest-profile drama board every time (what is this, the fourth time TT has gotten a new email stalker? The fifth?) is not going to make the problem go away. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Just forward the emails to an admin who will just indef the sender without email access. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
That's been repeatedly suggested to TT. I'm not sure why it hasn't been taken up. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

User:AngeloADiamond[edit]

Resolved: I've closed the AFD as "keep" and told the article's creator not to remove the AFD tag from articles nominated for deletion until the discussions are closed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

This is my first time ever coming to ANI, and I take this matter quite seriously. I am requesting a short block of User:AngeloADiamond This new editor has repeatedly removed the AFD tmplate from the article article on Eliza Swenson.[1] The editor was warned by a bot, warned by User:The Mark of the Beast and warned at least three times by User:Monty845 but has continued the disruptive behavior. See [2][3][4][5][6][7][8] with the last incident being some few hours after User:Monty845's "final warning". I request an admin perform a to temp block to end the disruption until the AFD is concluded. Thanks, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

There's probably nothing actionable right now as the user isn't actively disrupting. I've got it watchlisted. N419BH 08:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I anticipate the next template removal in a few hours. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

AFD gone astray[edit]

Resolved

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicola Ann Raphael --Penbat (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Closed as keep - if someone wants to renominate, feel free. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Block request for Mosaica1 and content revert request[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Dear Administrator, I respectfully request that you review the content dispute on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amigo_Energy and put a block on account user Mosaica1. Recently Mosaica1 posted false and defamatory information regarding Amigo Energy and an employee that was terminated, as well as re-posting previously refuted information.

To protect the quality and relevance of Wikipedia content, I request that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amigo_Energy be reverted to the 02:31, 20 April 2011 version and locked for editing.

Explicit Violations and Inaccuracies: Header, “Key People”: “Javier Antonio Vega, founder, former President/CEO, wrongfully terminated.” Mr. Vega was not wrongfully terminated, and there is no claim or judgment stating that he was. He has not been associated with the company for more than 3 years, and does not qualify as a “key person”. Listing prior employees in this area is not appropriate, and disputable information about those employees needs a reference.

Section 1, P1: “Wrongful Termination of CEO Javier Vega” is false, as the employee was rightfully terminated under U.S. and Texas employment law. Reference #2, (County Clerk Website) shows a contract case that is in “Hold” status pending judgment.

Section 4, P1: “Residents in the Houston, Texas area of Amigo Energy have recently complained…” – no complaints submitted since early 2009, and do not qualify as “recent”.

Section 4, P2: “The agreement between National Power and Amigo Energy was reported by the Public Utility Commission of Texas that the current Terms of Service and rate structure of the National Power variable rate customers would be carry over to Amigo Energy.” – This is false and contrived information, reference not valid.

Section 4, P2: “Amigo Energy is currently accused of not meeting that clause by not sending out a new Facts Label before increasing the rates charged more than 80% in one month.” - Information is false and is demonstratively contrived, as it is in conflict with the 61% number stated in sentence 1. No reference.

Section 4, P2: “Most of the former National Power Company customers had their rates go from 11.1 -12.5 cents per kilowatt hour to 19.9 -24.69 cents per kilowatt hour in the first month after the customer transition completed” – Information is false and contrived, no reference.

This is not an exhaustive list, but I have shown an abundance of evidence in support of my claim. I trust that you will agree that the editing behavior of Mosaica1 is both false and defamatory. 64.125.194.66 (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring the content issue for a moment, it does look like Mosaica1 has fouled WP:3RR. This may or may not be an ancillary issue to the content question. Looking back at the article itself, this should be a WP:BRD matter which doesn't require admin intervention; at the very least, it should have gone to dispute resolution prior to coming here. Finally, my instincts all scream that WP:BLP should apply. I've removed the material in question and asked for commentary on the Talk page regarding it, under WP:BRD. Just my 2p worth; save up the change for a root beer or something. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Rather than edit-warring, you should have discussed the problem on the talk page of the article. And you should have put the ANI-notice on the other user's talk page. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

User removing CSD notification from non-free images used solely in userspace.[edit]

Hello, I have been attempting to tag four files (File:DCFC0003.JPG, File:DCFC0004.JPG, File:DCFC0004.jpg, and File:DCFC0001.JPG) for CSD as copyright violations (derivative works of copyrighted material). The uploader, User:JamesAlan1986, has consistently reverted this. Examples: 1, 2, and 3 and responded to with aggression. I have already reverted his reversion twice per file and given him warning twice, including mentioning ANI. Could an admin intervene? Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I have warned the user, and reverted the CSD removals. However, I'll point out that JamesAlen1986's user page now states that he is "Offline Forever" and has "Washed his hands of the whole Wikipedia mess" (paraphrase). Qwyrxian (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

And I am, I'm done. I'm tired of the drama on here. I'm tired of getting attacked for following Wikipedia standards (check the entire history page of "Sparks Fly") and now this. I got enough on my plate without this crap and feeling like I don't have any rights. My mother has done it my whole life. I'm worried about losing my best friend. I don't get on here for drama and people to start stuff I get on here to help contribute. But I'm done with now I can't deal with this anymore and I shouldn't have to so just delete the d*** pictures so I can get off here. JamesAlan1986 *talk 11:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's not mis-state those uses as copy vios. The are violations of the Wikipedia policy intended to try to get free images by discouraging fair use and use-with-specific-permission of non-free images North8000 (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. I wish I could say this is an isolated incident. Those are non-free images, and should be deleted, however because trans-photographic copyright (the issue here) can be difficult to explain, because there really wasn't a terrible amount of explaining going on, and the person on the receiving the explanation wasn't making a great effort to listen, we get these situations. What is needed is a bright and colorful one page PDF that explains trans-photographic copyright in language that a third grader can understand (not to say anyone here is a third grader, just to say that any legalspeak in the document is too much legalspeak). Sven Manguard Wha? 12:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, using a term "trans-photographic copyright" that doesn't come up with hits in Wikipedia or Google is not a good start. :-) North8000 (talk) 12:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I made that term up a while back because I've yet to find a better term for it. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd support a simpler explanation, as long as the title wasn't too clunky (it's a nice one though) Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  • As a side question, if it is not a copyright violation per se, how would it be classified? Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, it is a copyright violation, plain and simple, the issue is explaining how it is a violation. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Ah, I misread North's comment "Let's not mis-state those uses as copy vios"; in that case, why not call a spade a spade? Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The creator of the files chose to nominate them for speedy deletion per WP:CSD G7, and they are gone. Favonian (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's a suggested nutshell: "If you make a copyrighted work of something to which someone else holds a copyright, then nobody can use it unless they both give a license." — Coren (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It's called a derivative work, if anyone's interested. -FASTILY (TALK) 22:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Typically, when making a derivative work, the original copyright holder's licensing must be compatible with the derivative work copyright holder's licensing (usually, that'll work the other way around, too, but it's not a requirement). — Kudu ~I/O~ 22:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if you want to really tell it like it is, while one may know that something is WP policy violation, other than making an educated guess, nobody in Wikipedia ever really knows that anything is a copy vio. A copy vio is use without permission for that use. This is because Wikipedia is unwilling and unable to record all of the normal type permissions for use, such as permissions for specific uses, permissions restricted to not-for-profit uses etc. The only thing that it is willing or able to record is essentially unlimited permissions for unlimited use (including for-profit) by others. So, in Wikipedia, completely lacking that information, other than taking a guess, nobody has any frigin' clue as to what other permissions have been granted and thus no basis for saying that something is a copy vio. North8000 (talk) 10:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be confused about exactly what a "copyright violation" means. The only licenses under which we can make use of content are the Creative Commons license under which all of our original content is released and those strictly more permissive than that (such as public domain). Any other "specific permissions" mean that we would therefore be violating the copyright of the holder by including it here under a more permissive license than that under which it has been released. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Not really. For example, if an image owner gave permission for an image to only be used in Wikipedia, placement in Wikipedia is not a copyvio. Such placement (including meaningless "assenting" to other uses by the editor placing it) may lead to a copy vio, but it itself is not a copy vio. And since Wikipedia has no way to record or recognize such conditional permissions, there is no way to know that a copy vio exists. What IS known is that such is a violation of WP policy. North8000 (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Nope. The act of uploading a file here is the same as the act of publishing it under our copyright license. The minute a file is uploaded we are explicitly distributing it under our terms, and the minute anyone looks at it that person has had the file distributed to them under our terms. Where our terms are more liberal than those under which the file was offered to us, we're breaking the license terms (implicit or explicit) under which the offer was made, and as such we're engaging in copyright violation by distributing copyrighted works without permission. This is why "permission is given to Wikipedia only to distribute this file" licenses are broken by design, as we distribute only on our only license terms and (optionally) under more liberal terms than CC-BY-SA for certain files (where distributing as CC-BY-SA is permitted by the more permissive license by definition). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
(ec / "thinko") I'm afraid I disagree with North8000. Although I am not a lawyer, but by uploading an image to Wikipedia, the uploader grants certain redistribution rights (the CC-by-SA 3.0 license). If he doesn't have those rights, he's granting a license he doesn't have the right to. It may not be technically be a "copyright violation", it is illegal. I would call it "induced copyright violation", rather than "contributory copyright violation", in that the uploader should know that the material would be automatically distributed in violation of copyright.
But I'm not a lawyer, and I don't think it's ever been established whether quoting on and archiving of Usenet is legal, and that's been around a lot longer than Wikipedia.
(end ec) But I agree with Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) that it's wrong. I would say it's illegal on the part of the uploader, but it doesn't really matter. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Agree that it's a bad idea and violates policy. Not about copyvio. And keep in mind that accusing someone of copy vio is accusing them of a civil or criminal offense. North8000 (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
For better or worse, NLT has developed particular exceptions whereby we are permitted to warn editors regarding particular areas of legality: specifically, libel as it refers to negative and unattributed commentary about a living person, and copyright violation. There's next to no chance that this will change. As for whether the problem in question is directly copyright violation or merely "inducement to copyright violation" as Arthur put it, in practice the distinction is academic and a far cry from your original point (which was, so far as I can see, that Wikipedia should collect data under whatever license it can, and pass the buck onto readers to wade through licenses individually should they wish to redistribute our content). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Meow's edits[edit]

Resolved: Meow has apologized. Content disputes can be handled on the article's talk page. 28bytes (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Meow vandalizes the article 2011 Pacific typhoon season by removing well-sourced and verifiable content (ie. Blanking) and use foul language in the edit summary (Edit summary vandalism) in the edit at 05:10, 12 September 2011. Administrators should take appropriate action to prevent further damage to the article.2011typhoon (talk) 07:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You are a liar. What people can see is only your vandalism. I only recover that article from your mess. You keep:
  • Adding unreliable and incomplete information.
  • Reverting new things to old things.
  • Editing with vandalism and cheating.
--Cat silhouette.svgMeow 09:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Are you talking about yourself? You keep removing reliable information. Also, as I have mentioned many times, incompleteness is not a valid excuse to remove any content. Any article in Wikipedia is incomplete!!! That's why information need to be added.2011typhoon (talk) 10:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
2011typhoon, nobody is vandalising, here; this is just a content dispute. You should follow WP:DR, to try and solve it by discussion. At the moment, you're edit warring with Meow; if you keep this up, I'll protect ther article. Now, Meow, this edit summary is a blatant violation of WP:NPA; pleaseconsider this your only warning: if you do something like that again, you'll be blocked. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
"You are a liar" is also pretty inappropriate. Oh, and Meow, while you're here you should be aware that using images in your signature is a no-no. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Both of you, show some respect to WP:CIVIL. No offese Meow, but calling people a liar is a personal attack IMO. Please stop. Thank you.YE Pacific Hurricane 14:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
The original poster really needs to provide proof of their claims that Meow is using foul language in the edit summaries, because I sure don't see it. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Ahem. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I missed that, thanks, Chris. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

page ownership[edit]

user Mattinbgn seems to have set himself up as the de facto arbiter of what may or may not be posted on articlr Bowls' talk page [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bowls&diff=450017154&oldid=450016526] is this legitimate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.195.250 (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It was a clear case of WP:NOTFORUM, and Mattinbgn acted correctly. Article talk pages are for discussing how to improve the article, not discussing the subject of the article ("It's ludicrous to call this a sport! We will soon have conkers. marbles, hopscotch and hoopla clamouring for 'sport' status.") -- Scjessey (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Now hang on! The IP went about this the wrong way but did have a point to make. Yes, "article talk pages are for discussing how to improve the article". The IP asked whether bowls was a "sport or game?" which was fair enough, but then he got a bit shirty with the comment that it is ludicrous to call bowls a sport. I disagree with him, but (hypothetically) had enough people agreed it was a game and not a sport, then the article might have been changed -- improved. So yes, his point was justified there, especially as Wiki's sport/games delineation leaves a lot to be desired. For instance, the intro of our Tug of war article defines tug of war as a sport, but has an image with a caption calling it a game. The main illustration of our Game article has an image of a tug of war event. Hmmm. Moriori (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I've notified Mattinbgn of this thread, since the original poster failed to do so. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Concur that the removal was proper, in accordance with WP:TPO. I also note the reporting IP is from the same range as the IP which posted the removed material. I've added the {{notforum}} flag to the Talk page header in an attempt to forestall development of the issue beyond this point. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you guys. There has been a bit of a low level vandalsim campaign in the article to replace the word "sport" with "game" for some months now. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Serial copyright violator has resumed under new identity(s)[edit]

In June 2009, Ernestobelmonte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for repeated copyright violations, mostly with regard to articles concerning horse racing and horse race broadcasting. In April 2010, the editor behind that account appears to have resumed editing as Wantobereporter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), creating and editing articles in the same field; the substantial edits resume the pattern of overt copyright violations. (See, for example, List of HRTV commentators, which seems to be little more than a cut-and-paste of the copyrighted promotional biographies found here [9]. Wantobereporter, like Ernestobelmonte, ignored warnings on their talk page and reinstated copyvio articles after deletions. The Wantobereporter account stopped editing in June 2011, but there are IPs which seem to pick up the editing pattern (User:75.5.0.129, User:75.4.236.228, for example).

There are probably other accounts/IPs that I haven't spotted. It also looks there are a lot of copyvios to be cleaned up, possibly dating back to the Ernestobelmonte account. For example, spotchecked List_of_TVG_commentators#Nancy_Ury includes text cut-and pasted from here [10] and here [11]. It's not clear to me (yet) how many of the articles/entries involved call for outright deletion and how many should be let stand following a thorough copyvio scrubbing. I certainly think we need to look for other accounts/IPs which may be associated with the Wantobereporter account (the already-blocked account data is presumably stale). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you take this to sock-puppetry investigations. --S Larctia (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest WP:CCI. CCI is very backlogged, but WP:SPI will not organize copyright cleanup. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe to WP:Pass the buck. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you offering to file it, Bugs? Marvelous. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
SPI's are a waste of time and effort. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Why is that?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Two reasons: (1) They are difficult to set up and then the checkuser closes it because he doesn't feel like looking outside the box; and (2) The occasional passing checkuser here, if he's in the right mood, will go ahead and take action without a formal SPI being made. As with the original discussion in this section: If an admin feels like taking action, they will; if not, they tell the OP to go someplace else. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

This train looks like it's going to have to run on multiple tracks; I am hoping for guidance on how best to organize things and what sequence /timing to start them up in. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:CCI is the place to go to note the copyright issues. We (by which I mean most probably the wonderful User:MER-C) will create a page listing all of his contributions so that they can be checked for copyright concerns. WP:SPI is the place to go if you want admins to look into the connection of the accounts. However, I think now that I've had time to look into it that the quacking is strong here. For instance, I see that Ernestobelmonte created the article Caton Bredar, which was G12ed. The new account recreated it as a copyvio of the same source. I think there's enough behavioral evidence at this point for me to take action on the named accounts. I haven't looked closely at the IPs, but at least one of them seems to have been dormant for a year or so? I'll look more into that as soon as I figure out why the copyvio template isn't working. :P --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay, fixed the template for now and blocked the named account. I'm going to go ahead and set up the CCI on both accounts as well. The IPs do seem to be a bit stale. If you become aware of any that are active, please take it to WP:SPI. I'll make sure all probable socks are tagged, which will help establish location. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Preemptive protection of World Trade Center.[edit]

Resolved: 9/11/11 has passed. --Σ talkcontribs 00:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

This is an unusual request, but it's not without any justification. Seeing as the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks is just a day away, should we have a preemptive protection of the World Trade Center, knowing there WILL be a lot of trolling on that article on 9/11/11? Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 12:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Since there's been some vandalism over the last few days, there might be reason to protect the page even if the preemptive reason given above is rejected. OpenInfoForAll (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
There's a spectrum of a couple of dozen articles that are starting to see vandalism, such as United Airlines Flight 93, , but not yet to excess: I'd just protect per usual policy if it starts to get out of hand. World Trade Center and its companions will become de facto featured articles for a couple of days, and should be watched accordingly. Acroterion (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Just lots of eyes for now. There will be a lot of trolling/Obama is teh gay lol/general rubbish on the articles. I would encourage people to watchlist them and report excessive vandalism in the usual manner. But preemptive semiprotection is something we just don't normally do. N419BH 17:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


30 minutes to Zulu Hour. Huggle at the ready... --Cerejota (talk) 03:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest watchlisting links from the current TFA, American Airlines Flight 11, including the other flights in particular. I note that Daniel M. Lewin has received some unwelcome attention, for instance. I wouldn't expect any significant changes at 2400 hours EDT, though. Acroterion (talk) 03:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I've signed up several pages for Cluebot NG's ANGRY MODECC-BY-SA. Cluebot will now ignore its 1RR restriction on all these articles. Today's featured article, American Airlines Flight 11 is automatically patrolled in Angry Mode. N419BH 04:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Appreciate the enthusiasm, but be careful, please, we'll have a lot of folks who are new to WP visiting. Acroterion (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Heh - I was just in Manhattan today. Parts of it are like an armed camp, and they're taking it mighty seriously there. I agree that discretion is wise on this subject. Doc talk 04:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Ground Zero is flooded. I should know because my office is next to the location. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 13:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the pages from ClueBot NG's ANGRY MODECC-BY-SA, as 9/11/11 has passed in the mainland US (or whatever you call it). --Σ talkcontribs 07:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Was going to do that in the morning but it's probably okay to do it now. N419BH 07:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing of User:DIREKTOR[edit]

Hi. I have problem with User:DIREKTOR who pushing his POV in article Serbia under German occupation. Seems that this user is trying to push his POV by all possible means and to ignore any sources that I presented to him. I tried to discuss with him on both, article's talk page and his personal page, but there is no use since this user decided to solve issue by revert warring. Please see this edit: [12] - user DIREKTOR included false info that Serbia during World War II was part of the nation of Germany, while it was a foreign country occupied by German forces. There is no source that support claim that Serbia was part of Germany. He also included files with misleading descriptions. User DIREKTOR uploaded files GNS_Flag.svg and GNS_CoA.svg, which he created from files Flag_of_serbia_1941_1944.JPG and Coat_of_arms_of_serbia_1941_1944.JPG - I uploaded and scaned these two files from a book that explicitly claiming that these were symbols of Serbia, while DIREKTOR uploaded modified versions of these files using false description that these symbols representing only government of Serbia but not Serbia itself (He did not provided a single source that claiming that these symbols represented only government). Generally, he simply trying to annihilate name "Serbia" as a name for WW2 territory wherever he can, as can be seen from this edit: [13] (he simply replaced name "Serbia" with "Government of National Salvation"). In this talk page comment DIREKTOR explicitly said "There was no country or political entity called Serbia", which clearly reflecting the POV that he wants to push. In this edit he also annihilated infobox that representing subject of the article (i.e. Serbia) and replaced it with two infoboxes that are representing only administrative bodies that governed Serbia. This is completely against Wikipedia practices because similar articles about countries and territories usually containing infoboxes that representing countries and territories, not governments of these countries and territories. Note that he did not presented a single source that support claim that there was no Serbia, while he ignored all sources that I collected that are claiming opposite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PANONIAN/Sources02 Can somebody please stop this user to edit articles based simply on his unsourced POV and against sources? Also note that this user was recently banned from editing of Balkan-related topics by an administrator (User:Fainites) (See reasons for ban elaborated here, but seems that this ban was lifted due to DIREKTOR's appeal and opinion that user:Fainites was involved in dispute with him. However, the fact that an admin was involved does not mean that behavior of user DIREKTOR was not disruptive - his behavior should be further examined by uninvolved admins. PANONIAN 20:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a content dispute issue. I won't go into the details but this report seems to be the preferred alternative to responding to a request that the user indicates a source properly and in accordance with WP:V (the name of the publication + a page number). The user simply posts a link to this page of his full of dozens of links to various texts and images and says: "here's the source". It would also be futile to list the numerous, numerous incidents reported here which offer an insight into PANONIAN's own behaviour and the nature of his involvement. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Cross-accusations and policy-shopping solves nothing. Have either of you looked for a third opinion or otherwise sought dispute resolution? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
That will definitely be the next step it seems. Though after having been engaged in a mediation for almost two years :P, I've admittedly lost faith in WP:DR's ability to resolve complex and obscure Balkans issues. I will be going on vacation (again) in a few days, when I return I think a good idea would be to request more eyes on this matter. Its really a boring, irrelevant, fringe issue - but its been going on for ages now (imo because of PANONIAN's insistence on referring to a Nazi German occupation zone as "Serbia", implying the existence of a historical country). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Why not try WP:DRN? There is no admin action need here...--Cerejota (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

As you can see, I asked for third opinion long time ago and this is response to it: [14]. Problem is that DIREKTOR simply does not accept that third opinion. What Wikipedia policies requiring in the case when someone does not accept third opinion? PANONIAN 04:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that anything short of WP:RFAR will solve the problem. And that problem is not Panonian, at least not in this case. No such user (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Snettie: POV warring, possible copyvio concerns, WP:CIVIL as well[edit]

Snettie (talk · contribs) is POV warring on Political positions of Ron Paul, adding long POV quotes directly from Ron Paul [15] [16] [17] are just a few of the many diffs that demonstrate this. S/he is also namecalling in his/her edit summaries, including accusing editors of vandalism [18], book burning [19], and other statements. I am stepping out of this so I don't violate 3RR, but until something is done, s/he is going to continue to push long Ron Paul monologues into the article. Kansan (talk) 06:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

At the least Snettie should get a block for continuing to edit war after being warned. aprock (talk) 06:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
He's done it again; reverting. Quotes are automatically copyrighted aren't they? N419BH 06:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
He's also running amok on Rick Perry. Same MO. Reverted to version prior to edit war. N419BH 06:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Blocked 24 hours. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Pmanderson / Septentrionalis and MOS[edit]

User:Pmanderson was recently "Topic banned from WP:MOS and discussions anywhere on the project concerning the Manual of Style or technical aspects of the use of the English language anywhere on the project, including his own talkpage, for a period of one year." per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Pmanderson. Recently he has begun commenting at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) and making changes to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Would this not constitute a violation of his ban? Jayjg (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Titles and naming were specifically left out of the topic ban, so he's only violating it if he commented on "technical aspects of the use of the English language." I'm pretty sure that was intended to cover "usage" comments such as he has made there in "...English-speakers overwhelmingly call the islands the Falklands, except when discussing the dispute." I suppose he'll argue that this is not a "technical aspect"? Dicklyon (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. Naming conventions are part of the Manual of Style. Wikipedia:Article titles is the summary page for all naming convention pages, and it itself is a spinout of Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles. That is not 100% clear at first glance, but he should now consider himself informed. I'll block him if he continues to edit those pages. NW (Talk) 03:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
The page linked specifically bans him from article titles as well. It isn't like it is hard to interpret. The Option N+1b stated "Indefinite topic ban from Wikipedia:Article titles and any related discussion, construed broadly" and passed unanimously. I would say that discussions of article titles meets the definition of a broadly construed discussion of article titles. I would even venture that this is a rather narrowly construed violation of the topic ban. --Jayron32 04:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I edit WP:AT and discuss in there frequently, and I agree that a narrowly construed view of what you posted. "Naming conventions" guidelines are basically there to hyper-explain policy, a recognition that WP:AT is too broad in focus and that instead of having thousands of simultaneous discussion on how AT applies to names of things such as geographic names, we have naming conventions. But naming conventions are completely subordinate to WP:AT. If I am not misremembering, this was made clear on the RfC that established that WikiProjects couldn't make MoS calls without engagement of all of the community: the buck stops at WP:AT, and no MoS can go against it.--Cerejota (talk) 04:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Given all that, what's the explanation for Edelweiss? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Easy: WP:IAR :P --Cerejota (talk) 04:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
One key factor in IAR is "to improve wikipedia". Such as by using common names. Just today I was watching The Sound of Music, and it's always a poignant moment when they sing, "Leontopodium alpinum, Leontopodium alpinum, ev'ry morning you greet me..." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
That's because you're not singing it like a botanist would. All together, from bar 32, "L. alpinum, L. alpinum, bless my homeland forever." --Shirt58 (talk) 07:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Cerejota: It's pretty clear that PMA isn't supposed to be in discussions related to the titles of articles at all. It has nothing to do with the venue or the name of the specific pages; the community decided (unanimously among those that participated, I might add) that he wasn't supposed to be concerning himself with the naming of articles in any way. --Jayron32 04:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
It's true that the community agreed (unanimously, or nearly so, I forget which) to ban him from title discussions. But the closer declined to represent that explicitly in the statement of the topic ban, so it remains a bit ambiguous just where the line is. I expect that's why he's testing it with otherwise innocuous comments and edits. I agree that we should warn him that he's over the line. Dicklyon (talk) 04:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Note that the ban proposal agreed on and the implemented ban are different things. The ban proposal was

Pmanderson shall be subject to an indefinite topic ban from Manual of Style (e.g. WP:MOS & WP:MOSNUM) and any related discussion, construed broadly. This includes naming policies and guidelines (e.g. WP:TITLE), move (title re-naming) policies and guidelines (WP:MOVE) and any related discussion, construed broadly.

While the actual ban was different. It was not indefinite and did not explicitly include titles.

You are Topic banned from WP:MOS and discussions anywhere on the project concerning the Manual of Style or technical aspects of the use of the English language, including this talkpage, for a period of one year.

I find it highly unfortunate that Elen of the roads in this way decided to forgo the community opinion and implement her own ban and that way nullify a long discussion and it's final consensus, but this is what happened. It is as of such unclear if Pmanderson is banned from discussion title changes or not. Since this has been a constant flash point for Pmanderson it makes sense that he is, but only Elen can clarify if this was intended. In any case these edits on title issues can not be seen as violations of the ban, as the ban isn't clear on the issue, unless the discussions he is having relates to technical aspects of the use of the English Language. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to delve too deeply into the constitutional law of wikipedia here, but aren't such bans are usually founded on some kind of consensus? If the text that subsequently summarised the consensus wasn't entirely accurate, that's unfortunate, but it doesn't change the consensus (hopefully).
If you owe your broadband provider €30 per month but due to some billing error they only send you an €8 bill this month, don't be surprised that they come asking for an extra €22 in the very near future - the debt hasn't been erased. We may, of course, forgive somebody for their nonpayment in the interim since they've been sent the wrong bill... bobrayner (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
An administrator can only implement a community ban; he/she can't implement a proposal that differs from the community consensus. The community banned Pmanderson from the topic areas, including article titles; I have no doubt that the lack of explicitness in Elen of the Roads statement is a mere oversight, and will assume good faith that this is the case. We are certainly not bound by technicalities here; Wikipedia is not a court of law, and definitely not a bureaucracy. Jayjg (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
From what I understand, the phrasing of Elen's version of the topic ban was a deliberate personal choice. The omission of page moves and discussions of article titles was not an oversight. Mathsci (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to judge Elen's actions, but Elen does not have the scope to implement a decision that differs from that of the community. The only conclusion compatible with WP:AGF is that Elen accidentally mis-worded the closure. In any event, the community consensus is pretty clear. Jayjg (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I asked Elen by email about this exact point a while back (26 August) and I am just paraphrasing her response. She wrote that the only way to change the scope of the topic ban was for her version of the topic ban to be overturned by another administrator and the process restarted again to put in place a wider topic ban. You can ask her yourself directly. Mathsci (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
What a mess. I told you all a 3-month block would have been better. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Where is the mess? Here, yes, but that is normal for ANI discussions where there is a lack of clarity. What I can't see here is any mess resulting directly from Pmanderson's edits. Seriously. Go look at them (I gave a link below) and ask yourself which of them have resulted in a mess like the one at Crepe that led to the ban discussion. None that I can tell. He's avoiding areas involving diacritics and spelling, and that has to be a good thing. Carcharoth (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
It seems less messy than I thought, since it is now clear that Elen had the right to give whatever ban she pleased. So the only mess now is what you mentioned below. So not that messy, just a bit confusing on what the ban actually was and what it covered. This seems to be cleared out now. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I'm not sure what action is required here. The topic ban does not mention AT and community consensus is encapsulated in whatever explicit statement of the ban is provided to the editor. The only actionable course of action I can see here is to seek a new consensus that includes AT in the topic ban. While we're not bureaucratic around here, it doesn't seem right to add elements to a ban after one has been enacted (without new consensus, that is). --rgpk (comment) 21:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Someone could ask Elen to reconsider her closure of the ban discussion. I think she consciously intended to make PMA's topic ban only for one year, but I'm not sure if she wanted to exclude article titles from the scope of the ban. She stated 'He has already agreed to leave this area alone, so I do not anticipate an enforcement issue.." which may suggest she thought (at the time) that it was unnecessary to sweat the details of the ban. If Elen agrees to review her close, she could be asked to re-examine this part of the ban discussion to assess whether there is consensus to exclude PMA from discussions of article titles. The proposal to ban PMA from WP:TITLE and WP:MOVE discussions had 13 supports but some conditional opposes. EdJohnston (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  • The reason pages about how to treat article titles are not (and never have been) part of the manual of style is because article titles are a matter of both content (what name to use) and style (how to write or spell that name). No style guide will ever help decide things like the Ireland naming disputes or the Macedonia naming disputes or the Falkland Islands naming dispute (those are actually content/NPOV issues, not style issues). Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles is (or should be) a summary of the style aspects of Wikipedia:Article titles, which is the main, parent page.

    If this is not dealt with properly, my prophecy there will come true: "If things are not made clear now, you can be sure that Pmanderson will arrive at a discussion citing WP:COMMONNAME and claim it is a content/NPOV issue, not a style issue, and you can be just as sure that someone will haul Pmanderson off to a noticeboard and demand an immediate indef block. So please can we be crystal clear as to what the topic ban means." Part of the problem here is precisely that the Manual of Style reaches into nearly all areas of Wikipedia, so if you end up being critical of the overall approach taken by the Manual of Style (including its tendency towards instruction creep), then it becomes very hard to do anything on Wikipedia.

    Also, please note the discussion here where Cynwolfe (an editor I respect for their content contributions) says this:

    "I have to say one thing out of loyalty and fairness: I consider this a serious loss to the Greece & Rome project, where PMA's experience and knowledge are one of our greatest assets. I assume, however, he can still answer questions about content? And if I wanted his opinion on what to name a new article, would this be considered within the topic ban? And you seem to emphasize "English related," meaning he could address, say, questions about Latin? I'm really not trying to make a point; I would want to support behavior that allowed him to remain on WP, but I'm … I'm … well, OK, I'm plenty pissed that his opinion can't be asked even where it's welcome. (Not pissed at you; you're doing a needed job.) I suppose it's no secret that I would rather deal with a hundred PMAs than one politely passive-aggressive POV-pushing ignoramus."

    In that discussion, Elen of the Road's says explicitly that the ban is on style only and that "Discussion of content is fine" (the title of the article on the Falklands Islands is clearly a content issue). Another discussion on Elen of the Road's talk page that is worth looking at is here. Though in fact that discussion didn't really bring much clarity at all. The real crux of the issue here is whether article naming issues to do with content and/or NPOV are style issues. I don't think they are. To me, style issues are things like spellings and diacritics. But it seems some think that the Manual of Style is now the ultimate arbiter on what the title of Falkland Islands should be. I really hope that is not the case.

    Another point I want to make is that Jayjg doesn't seem to have interacted with Pmanderson at all in recent edits. I presume Jayjg just happened to be reading that page and decided to come here and object to the edits in question? A better approach would be to look at Pmanderson's edits since the ban was implemented. What I see in his edits is discussion on naming issues, but careful avoidance of style issues. I also don't see any objections from other editors at those discussions to the edits and comments he made. Rather than editors who participated at the ban discussion jumping into this discussion and dividing along the same lines again (I participated at that ban discussion, as did Jayjg and several others commenting here), what is needed is someone new to all this to look at Pmanderson's editing and to clarify the ban on that basis. Is anyone willing to do that? Carcharoth (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you; I would prefer not to have been brought back to discussing this subject. Whether article titles are included was brought up to Elen, who imposed the ban; I notice that none of the people who support this section bothered to ask her (or me) before commenting. She replied that she didn't intend to ban (me) from discussing whether it should be called Shiloh or Pittsburg Landing. She also discussed the same issue with one of the participants in this section here; please note that she was thanked, by a participant in the original discussion, for her wording. Is this whole thread asking the other parent? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
The discrepancies was pointed out already when she closed the discussion, so she was asked already. So claiming she wasn't asked is incorrect. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Carcharoth, you "presume" incorrectly. I don't know what Pmanderson's edits were, and have no opinion on them. Please don't "presume" about me again, or attempt to re-direct the focus of this discussion. The issue at hand is not whether or not anyone approves of disapproves of Pmanderson's edits, but whether or not he is topic-banned. Jayjg (talk) 03:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Something must have attracted your attention. One approach would have been to first ask Pmanderson and/or Elen what was going on, rather than come here immediately. It just seems strange that weeks after the discussion was closed you return to this issue, and return here rather than to Elen's talk page (as I suggested below and as others did immediately after the discussion closed). You commented at the previous discussion on 22 and 25 August. Elen closed it on 26 August. There was discussion at Elen's talk page which seemed to either conclude reasonably or peter out after a few days. You opened this ANI thread on 11 September, which is 16 days (more than 2 weeks) later. You've been active on many of the days in that 16-day period. Clearly there was no urgency (as you left it for more than two weeks before doing anything), so why didn't you ask Elen or Pmanderson about this first?

Anyway, putting that to one side, the central point here is whether Pmanderson should be following the topic ban Elen communicated to him on his talk page, or whether he should be following the interpretation you and others have of what he is banned from doing (remembering that you and other commenting here took part in the discussion, so are not best placed to interpret it). It is clear that Pmanderson needs to follow what Elen told him, and if that should be changed it needs to be done properly (notifying him of any new formal discussion so he can say something if he wishes), and then the new conclusions restated to him. And then hopefully this can be put to rest.

The first question to ask is whether a new discussion is needed or not. But consider this: if you are able to object to Elen's close and ask for it to be re-evaluated, what is to stop Pmanderson then asking for any new close to be re-evaluated in turn? And then you object, and so on. Where does it stop? Who gets to ask for a re-evaluation? Only those !voting and not the person being topic-banned? Carcharoth (talk) 04:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I would challenge anyone to identify a consensus out of the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Pmanderson. "The community" voted on every sanction from hitting him with cushions to hanging, drawing and quartering. The claim that there was a clear consensus on any one of the two dozen proposed versions is a bit thin in my opinion. I do think there is a difference between arguing over whether its called Shiloh or Pittsburg Landing, and arguing whether it should be crepe or crêpe, and I could not see that anyone had come up with a reason to ban him from content based discussion. That said, if the argument gets down to "it says in WP:MOS", then at that point he has to back out, because that IS covered by the ban. If that doesn't suit, and you guys prefer to start the whole thing over again and see if you get a different outcome, be my guest. On the other hand, if his editing is problematic for other reasons than you think it should have been topic banned, then let's discuss that.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I've got a crisp Finn that says that PMA will be back up here again for problems regarding article title discussions and the like; I give the over/under of 4 more ANI discussions of his behavior in the next 6 months. It is unfortunate that, despite explicit language and high participation which indicated that the community didn't want him involved in this issue that Elen specifically chose to leave that out of the ban. In the case its like convicting a man who shot the convenience store clerk of shoplifting. The greatest source of his disruption has always been article title issues, and to specifically avoid placing that in the ban only emboldens him while doing nothing about the core issue. --Jayron32 02:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I can count you know, and would challenge anyone to read the discussion and conclude that the most supported option was the ban that included article titles and moves. At least 45 people offered an opinion of one kind or another - only 13 supported the titles and moves ban, while 27 supported the MOS ban. And not everyone agreed that the content side of article titles was a contentious area, while pretty much everyone agreed that MOS and nitpicking over use of English was the flashpoint. Mum has spoken. Stop asking Dad. Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh, so now you are immune from having to answer for your actions as an administrator? That's an interesting tack to take on this. I appreciate that you have provided a rationale here, but providing a rationale does not mean that other people cannot disagree with your rationale. Merely having a rationale doesn't make you above criticism. --Jayron32 03:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You (Jayron32) don't think it is a bit demeaning to lower yourself to laying bets on matters like this? What if I said I had a book running on you about something? How would that make you feel? It would be better, as Elen said, to actually assemble diffs of problematic contributions to article title discussions. You might also want to look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pmanderson where the focus was on civility, not on any specific topic area. Though now I look more closely at that, I see that you (Jayron32) closed that RfC. May I ask if your strong views on Pmanderson developed from that RfC, or whether you held those strong views before you closed the RfC? I also notice that Elen participated at that RfC. But looking at the closure of that RfC, you seem to have largely ignored the second-most endorsed view (the one by Cynwolfe). Might I suggest you re-read that RfC and try and see how it looks to others when they compare what you said there to what you are saying here? It would help if you disclosed in future discussions of this sort that you closed that RfC and have since developed a view of your own to the extent that you would (presumably) be unable to close any future discussion of that nature. You will also see there the history that OpenFuture has with Pmanderson - something I had almost forgotten about.

This all goes to reinforce my view that people develop views of other editors based on where they encounter that editor (i.e an incomplete view), rather than a view based on an editor's contributions as a whole. In other words, the only way to get a genuine global picture of an editor is to go through their contributions as a whole, not to rely on what others say about them (which will inevitably be focused on specific interactions). And editors who disagree about another editor's contributions will almost certainly have different mental pictures in their mind of that editor, a mental picture coloured and shaped by where they encountered that editor. This 'different sides of an editor' aspect of Wikipedia is exacerbated in editors who have been around for a long time. The single best way (when a dispute doesn't arise from article content) to really see what an editor is made of is to edit an article with them, but sadly not enough people who get involved in meta-article disputes (e.g. MOS and naming disputes) seem prepared to work together on articles, preferring to throw brickbats at each other and then wait until next time to resume arguing again. Carcharoth (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I've not really, to my rememberence, interacted with PMA directly on any editorial matter (if I had, it was so fleeting and unmemorable as to escape my notice). I was aware of him as an editor, and closed the RFC in question because I had never had any significant contact with him. If I had, I would not have closed the RFC. My annoyance in the matter is largely because of the large volume of ANI space that PMA has taken up over the past, an occurance I would like to see stopped, especially since he seems to cause disruption on matters whose consequence is out of proportion to the effort spent on them. I'm not any longer going to contest Elen's choice in closing this. She is within her rights to close the matter as she sees fit, and she made a reasonable interpretation (one I disagree with, but not because it was unreasonable) of the consensus, and I concede (but do not support) the results of her closure. I do not wish PMA ill, and hope that he will learn to avoid the sort of problems that lead to the most recent unpleasentness. In closing, Carcharoth, you are correct. I definately overstepped the bounds of civility in my criticism of Elen of Roads, an admin I respect, and I owed her more courtesy then I gave her above with my flippant comments. This is my apology to Elen: I am sorry that I said what I did, while I disagree with you, you did not deserve to be put down like I did above. You have no reason to accept my apology, but I offer it unconditionally nonetheless. --Jayron32 03:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Accepted, and apology from me - I did not see this edit earlier, and would have reacted differently if I had. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Elen, challenge accepted, finding consensus in that discussion is trivial.
There was a long discussion with loads of opinions and voting and out of that came a final move to close with explicit terms set out, which got a clear consensus. Identifying the consensus is hence trivial, even for someone like me who does not really think the terms are any good. The proposal including titles (N+1b) was made as a *clarification* of the slightly badly worded N+1, and added after most people supporting N+1b had already supported N+1. It is hence not really a different outcome, but a clarification with a clear support from the 27 N+1 supporters. Saying that only 13 people supported the title and moves ban is completely incorrect. Firstly we have 15 supports of N+1b in the original discussion. In the move to close everyone (18) except three supported N1+b, and none of those three that opposed it supported N+1. Of those 18 in support of the N+1b close an additional 11 supported N+1b (6 of which earlier had supported N1, but N1+b, and 5 not supporting either), giving a grand total of 26 support votes for N1+b, with three against, this out of 45 people having any sort of opinion at all. As such the consensus was clearly for N1+b, but you decided to go for something closer to N+1, despite the criticism that is was fuzzy and would lead exactly to situations like this.
I think you are doing a great job as an admin. But this time you made a mistake. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I can count, and read, thank you. And it's not fuzzy at all - is he arguing that more sources call it Shiloh, or is he arguing that WP:MOS isn't applicable. The problem is that you and Jayron and Mathsci don't like it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Please don't put words into my mouth, Elen. I have just relayed what you told me as the result of an email enquiry I made shortly after you finalised the topic ban. I would tend to agree with what Carcharoth has written here, if you really wanted to know what I thought at present. If there is not a problem at the moment, there is no need to fix it. Mathsci (talk) 10:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I apologise, and have struck your name. I did think we had ended our conversation agreeing to see if Pmanderson got into any more trouble, and take prompt action at that point. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
No problem, Elen, and thanks for striking my name. Although I never sent a final "fair enough" reply, that was my understanding then also :) Mathsci (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
BS, Elen. I don't care what the terms are, as I've made abundantly clear I think all sorts of topic bans for Pmanderson are pointless. With or without titles, one year, indefinite, whatever. I don't care. Assuming good faith you made a mistake. When this is pointed out you come with accusations towards the messengers. That's not the right behavior.
You applied the ban you wanted instead the ban the community wanted, and that is the direct reason for this section here since some thought the consensus had been implemented, but it hadn't. It would have been better if the community consensus would have ruled or if you had made clear in your ruling that titles was NOT included , as this confusion would then not have arised. And then we wouldn't have had to waste this time on Pmanderson, again. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Point of order: Jayron32 disagrees with your conclusions and your method of "vote counting" to determine consensus. I don't have an opinion of the closure on the "like-dislike" scale. My level of likedness is completely neutral on the matter. I don't hold a negative opinion of you, Elen, because of the way you closed the discussion and the conclusions you drew, I just disgreed with those conclusions. One may disagree with something without haveing a dislike of it. --Jayron32 13:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • @Jayron, I believe that's mincing words, but I have no problem with phrasing it as "disagree". What I have a problem with is being bombarded with demands from a small number of editors asking me to change the decision. I'm not going to do that, so you need to find another mechanism. If you have evidence of Pmanderson displaying problematic behaviour while editing outside of the advertised ban, then please list it below, and the community can decide whether its patience is exhausted.

I'm not even going to grace OpenFuture with a response to that shocking display of bad faith. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

    • Just to be clear, also, Elen, I have not called for you to change the outcome. You will see above that I specifically said that I am not, would not, and am continuing to not do so. That doesn't mean that my disagreement is moot or invalid. I think it is appropriate to express disagreement in this case not because I expect you to change what you have done (which I do not expect you to do), but rather because I would hope it would change what you will do. I think you made an error in your assessment of the ban discussion, and I would hope that you not make that error the next time you make a similar assessment. It doesn't mean I wish to undo the past result, just that I think that your expressed method of judging consensus (raw votecounting, as you have explained several times you have done), is what I wish you would not do in the future. Does that mean that I wish PMA would act disruptive in the face of his ban: No, I hope he has learned his lesson and will not be as contentious as he has been. It would be ludicrous of me to wish that he would screw up. I hope he is able to participate in article title discussions from now going forward without being tendentious to the point of disruption. My frustration is that I have had the same wish for years, and having that wish has not had an effect. Maybe today that wish will come true. I have no evidence to suggest that it will, but as you said, the matter has been closed, and PMA should be free from harassment in this venue until someone can produce evidence that he isn't behaving himself. Let me state that again, just to be clear. You, Elen of the Roads, are correct when you demand that people need to present evidence that PMA is being disruptive before any further sanctions should be considered. That is correct. However, that isn't necessarily to say that I agree you assessed consensus correctly on the ban discussion. That is a different matter entirely. --Jayron32 17:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. Elen, the RfC made clear that Pmanderson was topic-banned from MoS issues, including article titles. Ohconfucius left titles out of the discussion in error, assuming it was obvious that it was included (see here). When this omission was pointed out to him (see here), he went back and fixed it, and people repeated their support for the inclusion of article titles in the ban (see here). The closure on those terms was confirmed here. Best thing now would be to make that clear to Pmanderson for the future, but without sanctioning him for any lack of clarity between then and now. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 16:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Now you see, I'm not reading events that way at all - which is why I keep telling people to find another mechanism to get the discussion re-evaluated, because I'm not going to change my close. As far as I can see, the decision was made to put up options - initially a civility block and a ban from MOS. The ban from MOS was very widely supported, but when the discussion got on to banning from article titles, there was disagreement in the discussion precisely because some editors did not support banning Pmanderson from content based article title discussion, and did not want to construct ban wording that would prevent him from doing that. So while there was a fairly clear consensus for the MOS ban, there was not the same consensus for the ban on all article title discussion, and indeed some concern about it was expressed.
I do invite all uninvolved editors to read the entire discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Pmanderson and perhaps there can be further discussion and more sets of !votes, until we all die of old age, or hell freezes over, or something. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Could you link to the section of the RfC where people seemed to oppose a topic ban regarding article titles? If you read this section, it says:
Pmanderson shall be subject to an indefinite topic ban from Manual of Style (e.g. WP:MOS & WP:MOSNUM) and any related discussion, construed broadly. This includes naming policies and guidelines (e.g. WP:TITLE), move (title re-naming) policies and guidelines (WP:MOVE) and any related discussion, construed broadly.
Fifteen people supported, and one asked a question. That's over and above the earlier question (in this section), which said:
The proposal before us here is that Pmanderson be subject to an indefinite topic ban from Manual of Style and any related discussion, construed broadly.
Twenty seven supported this, with three opposes and one question (note: construed broadly), so consensus seems clear. Can you link to the specific section where you feel people wanted the ban not to apply to article titles? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
SlimVirgin's observations are compelling. GFHandel   10:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I spent some time looking over the discussion (and am sorry I missed it) and SV is right that about the numbers relating to the AT topic ban. However, and there is always an however :), there are a couple of extenuating points that point to Elen having called the consensus correctly. First, the number of supporters for the AT topic ban is lower than the number of supporters for the MOS topic ban leading me to believe that there was a lot more support for the MOS ban than there was for the topic ban. Second, the number of !voters in the latter part of the discussion is considerably lower than the number of !voters and commenters in the earlier discussion. Since the discussion was moved out of ANI, it is not unreasonable to assume that it is possible that the final set of !voters is a self-selected one (note that I'm not saying that that was the case). Given these two factors, I'd say she made the right call. Finally, and this is a hated bureaucratic point, her actual ban was up there for everyone to see and any discussion about the ban should have been done at that time. It's just too late now. We need to look for a new consensus if we're going to ban Pmanderson from everything related to AT. --rgpk (comment) 13:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's too late now. In everything else you are incorrect, see my summary above that already clarifies it. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Look guys[edit]

I called it how I saw it, and I am not going to change my mind. So please find another mechanism that is acceptable to the community (who I notice are contributing in droves to say I'm wrong.....) to come up with an outcome that is more acceptable to yourselves. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Several admins here are saying you misjudged consensus, which is easily done when lots of people are responding to an RfC. Asking people to come up with another mechanism isn't fair and isn't needed, because that was the mechanism, and it delivered a clear answer. (If you're saying otherwise, please link to the discussion where you saw dissent, because I've looked and can't find it.) What's important is that there's clarity for Pma's sake. NW said above that he considered Pma topic-banned from article titles, so maybe that's something that should be communicated to Pma so he knows where he stands. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Do you not have this section [20] on the page you are reading? Or Bkonrad saying "Oppose. I could support if this were limited to discussions of policy pages, with some additional caveats with regards to participation in other forums, such as move discussions. I.e., if PMA can contribute responsibly and civilly in such discussions (and I've seen that it is possible for him to do so), that should be encouraged. There could perhaps be some sort of escalation clause, if such discussions get out of hand based on interpretations of WP:AT, but such a blanket prohibition is tantamount to giving PMA's antagonists another stick to poke into his cage."

And what part of I AM NOT GOING TO CHANGE MY MIND. Get an uninvolved admin to reclose the discussion are you not understanding. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You know, Elen, comments like that, and "Mum has spoken. Stop asking Dad"—it's just not an appropriate way to speak to people.
The section you linked to above was superseded by the section following it, where consensus was clear. That's all I'm going to say because I'm just repeating myself now. The only issue here is that it's unfair to Pma to have this lack of clarity, because he's in danger of being banned completely if the topic ban doesn't work out. He has a good mind, so I wouldn't want to see that. That's why I commented here. Over and out. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 19:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Two things. Firstly, fewer people took part in the last knockings of the discussion, so no, consensus was not clear. This isn't a Japanese game show where the last man standing wins - I read the entire thing, not the last 25 lines. Second, I'm completely clear that the ban currently enforced is the ban logged at the discussion, on his talkpage, and at the log of bans. And that does not include content based article title discussions. If he's not arguing that WP:COMMONNAME is a load of bollocks, but is arguing over which option is the more commonly used name (as for example in the lengthy discussions about what to call the practice recently known as Tree shaping) then he is not in breach of the topic ban. If he strays into any territory either to disagree with WP:MOS - or even how to interpret WP:MOS - or any new daft arguments about the English language, then he is violating the topic ban. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and if he continues to edit making civil and useful contributions, I would hope no-one would make the kind of bad faith allegations one sometimes sees in this venue. At the same time, if he edits disruptively and incivilly, I don't think it's going to make much difference whether or not the topic ban is involved. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
That's all well and good in areas outside his topic ban area. However, where he is topic-banned, he can, of course, make no edits, good, bad, or indifferent. That's what a topic ban is about. It was a topic ban that was enacted by the community, not a civility parole. Jayjg (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Look, this doesn't matter. The point of the topic ban was to try to see if a topic ban works. Exactly what topics are banned are not relevant, except that the change between the consensus and the ban caused confusion, but confusion that has now been cleared up. That was a waste of time and regrettable, but don't waste even *more* time on it, and on Pmanderson. The problems have never been the topics, Pmandersons behavior has been the same on all topics he is involved with. The question is if a topic ban will make the penny will drop and make him change his behavior or not. If titles are included in the ban or not is hardly going to make a difference. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd say we agree 100% on that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
The scope of the topic ban very much does matter. If the community didn't want to be topic-ban him, then it wouldn't have done so. One cannot, after a topic-ban has been enacted, say "well, he can still edit whatever he likes, but we'll watch his edits very closely now". Jayjg (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
He is not editing whatever he likes. He is (as far as I can tell) sticking to the topic ban communicated to him by Elen and avoiding style issues. You could at least acknowledge that. Carcharoth (talk) 02:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I was not implying that Pmanderson is "editing whatever he likes", I was responding to OpenFuture's implication that Pmanderson could still do, as long as he behaved himself, regardless of the topic ban. Jayjg (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't think I implied that. I did say that it didn't matter what the topic ban covered. Obviously he should follow it, regardless of what it covers. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think it's pretty obvious that "what the topic band covered" is quite relevant - that is, in fact, the very topic of this AN/I section. If an editor were, for example, to be banned from discussing issues of pseudo-science, and another editor stated "his edits on the topic of Guam have no issues, so therefore the topic-ban is working", that second editor's statement would be viewed as ludicrous, and rightfully so. Jayjg (talk) 03:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Sure, but that's because it is pretty weird from the start to give a generally problematic editor a topic ban in the hope that he will stop to be problematic across the board. But that was the community decision, and that means that as long as he is behaving the topic ban can be said to be "working". --OpenFuture (talk) 03:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
If you think that was the community decision, you must not have been there. The community decision was to explicitly include article titling discussions in the ban, since that's where most of the trouble was; Elen didn't get that, so here we are. He's "behaving" while testing the limits of his topic ban, naturally. Dicklyon (talk) 04:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Which leads us back to my original statement that exactly *what* the ban covers doesn't matter, so I think we are stuck now. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 04:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Pmanderson - actual problematic editing since topic ban[edit]

Please list edits that are actually problematic (not ones that you think should have been banned under the topic ban that isn't the one that is in force). If he's still being incivil, we can start that discussion about a site wide ban - I am serious about that. If all that is wrong is that he is disagreeing with you in a content based discussion, then I'm afraid you will have to live with it. If what is happening is that certain members of the community are following him round trying to start trouble (as I have seen alleged), then that can be dealt with also Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Elen, I'm sorry, but you don't get to unilaterally re-define the scope of the issue here. The issue is whether or not Pmanderson is banned from this topic, and secondarily, whether or not you're allowed to enact a different sanction than the community consensus. And, by the way, I don't know about others, but he's certainly not "disagreeing with [me] in a content based discussion". Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
The point, really, is that things have calmed down considerably. The whole issue was quiescent until you brought it up again and there didn't seem to be any objections from the others that participated at the previous discussion. If there is not an immediate problem here, what is the problem you are trying to solve? Did you not follow the discussion or did you enter a !vote and then drift away and only come back days later with an incorrect presumption about what the result was? I can understand that the result puzzles you, but if that is the case you should have gone to Elen's talk page first and then come here, and left a polite note on Pmanderson's talk page stating that you intended to question the precise nature of the topic ban as enacted by Elen, rather than immediately opening it up to community discussion again here. The fact that you came straight here first indicates that you wanted immediate admin action, rather than attempting to talk with the relevant people first.

One other thing I should say here, is that the whole concept of those !voting in a discussion like that producing a motion to close is the most bizarre thing I've ever seen. AfDs don't get closed by motion by those !voting in them, and neither do (topic) ban discussions. The whole concept of proposing a motion to close is an indication of a need to exercise bureaucratic control over a process, rather than letting it close the normal way. It is also a way to discourage new participation - would you participate in a process where those who had already participated were voting on a motion to close? There were deep flaws in the way that (topic) ban discussion was conducted. Carcharoth (talk) 02:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not at all puzzled by the outcome - it was clearly that Pmanderson was banned from all MOS-related pages, including pages about article titles. And the only "deep flaws" I can see the ban discussion was that the closer decided to unilaterally impose a different sanction than the community consensus. Jayjg (talk) 03:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Jayjg, your interpretation of the issue seems unduly harsh on Elen. Your userpage says you've been an admin for 6 years, I'm sure in that time you've had to exercise your judgement in interpreting the content of a discussion so that you can assess an appropriate consensus statement, and I'm sure you understand that real consensus can be at times very difficult to determine, and that it has far more to do with the content of conversation than the number of bolded support/oppose bullet points. Elen has made it repeatedly clear that, acting in good faith, she reached a particular conclusion of consensus, based on her reading of the discussion. You clearly disagree with that conclusion. However, Elen was the closing admin, not you. It was her job to use her judgement to assess consensus, not yours. Undoubtedly there are avenues available to you if you disagree, but leveling somewhat unpleasant accusations of unilateral changes and violating community consensus (as you personally interpret it, I might add) is hardly appropriate and certainly unexpected from someone in your position. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure how your point relates to the one to which you are responding. This discussion is not about Pmanderson's current behavior, but about the extent of his topic ban. Jayjg (talk) 03:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
My reply was to your statement, that the issue is whether or not Pmanderson is topic banned from article title topics. My understanding of your reading of consensus in the discussion was that he should be, and that Elen made a fundamental error in assessing consensus. My understanding of Elen's reply is that she did not make an error, but simply differs from you in her interpretation of the consensus. So to answer your question, no, it would appear Pmanderson is not banned from article title topics. Elen's assessment was not an error to be retroactively corrected, but a difference of opinion that has grounds to remain in effect. I don't see any justification here for implying she has tried to act unilaterally or in contradiction of consensus, as you directly stated in your response above. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I cannot see any confusion. The ban is the one that is logged on the ANI page, on PMa's talkpage, and at the log of bans, and anyone can go and read it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • The cup i half full... I am happy to report that part of the ban that was not reinterpreted is working as anticipated. The temperature at WP:MOS, and other related such as WP:MOSNUM, has returned to an acceptable level, and the editing and commenting there is noticeably more collegiate. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Request to Block User:92.236.180.51[edit]

Please block IP address 92.236.180.51 from editing pages on wikipedia indefinately. He , tom constantly break all pages wwil eventually lead phioloshy rule. by creating an architecture loop. it is Vandalism Particulary tthe page tools — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srappan (talkcontribs) 19:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

1: IP addresses are almost never blocked indefinitely.
2: Other editors (including at least one admin) have already taken note of this IP's activities.
3: In future, please follow WP:VANDAL, and report at WP:AIV. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Very new user, thanks for reporting this. I have blocked for 48hrs. Next time try WP:AIV - although I don't think the template for reporting is any easier to use. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
    • AIV is very easy to use: Just an asterisk, a userlinks, and an explanation. The only catch is to find an admin willing to do their job - which they will, most of the time, but there are no guarantees. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Trust me, my markup is so bad I can screw up anything. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Pray tell the admins don't go on strike anytime soon. –MuZemike 14:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Example:

No markup needed. No problem. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:RPP[edit]

Would a couple admins please sort through requests for page protection? It hasn't seen any admin attention in 8 hours. N419BH 08:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

To their great credit, GedUK has cleared the backlog. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Unmerger by IP after a merge was agreed[edit]

On June 13th a discussion was initiated at Talk:Complementarianism about merging Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and Danvers Statement to Complementarianism. It was closed (by the nominator) on August 1st after two other editors had agreed and a third (who has not edited since) disagreed. Last night an IP (an apparent SPA) came along and unmerged it, then posted on the talk page they didn't see a consensus. This was followed a minute later by an editor with an account agreeing they didn't see a consensus, then another editor agreeing with the merge. I reversed all of this as not according to process, but a related IP came along and unmerged again. Before I do anything else I'd like some advice. I strong feel that since the merge discussion did run for quite some time it shouldn't be this easy for an IP and another editor to unmerge two articles, but I'd like some advice at the very least. I don't care one way or another but this isn't the way to do things, and the IP is obviously an experienced editor. I'll post to the talk page about this as it isn't clear if the IP is just hopping or dynamic. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm disturbed that the IP took to reverting the merger without discussion. The merger discussion enumerated how these articles could merit a content fork, and any reversion that does not attempt to meet the basic criteria for a content fork seems in really bad faith to me. Combined with some apparent WP:Canvassing (by a previous editor), and this looks bad. I would like to see these articles reverted to merged and protected until the new discussion is complete. Can an admin do that? VanIsaacWS 10:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
It seems that there are (at least) three editors that oppose the merge, so that if there was a consensus, it has changed. However, the original discussion close by the merge proposer seems to me a little doubtful, at the least. -- 202.124.74.150 (talk) 10:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Then that's something that needs to be discussed, not unilaterally undone. VanIsaacWS 10:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
You need to re-read WP:CCC. It is not an invitation to anarchically overturning previous consensus, it is a guideline that says that previous consensus alone is not a valid reason to oppose a proposal. VanIsaacWS 10:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Except that we generally don't have unmerger discussions on Wikipedia. What happens if one thinks a merged article warrants an article by itself? One re-creates the article. For my part, I was just about to revert this edit when I thought I'd look up the Danvers Statement on Google Books. I was pleasantly surprised what I found there - it is easily notable enough for an article - and so I added a couple of references to the article. It seems that the IP editor is genuinely wanting to improve Wikipedia. StAnselm (talk) 10:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Sure we do, it's just a lot more informal than merge/delete discussions. What happens is, 1) a person adds a bunch of content to a section within an article, and then another editor comes by and says to himself "You know what? That section is really too bulky for this article. It could probably stand on its own.", then he searches for the term, find it redirects back to the page he's looking at, and he decides to remove the redirect and puts the content in that page. or 2) the original editor (or another) goes to the talk page and says "Hey, I know we had a merge before, but this section is starting to pull the rest of article into it gravity well. What do we think about a content fork?", and everybody says "Yeah, it's probably time now." It's simple, before you overturn the previously decision, you either meet the terms of the merge discussion and get confirmation (by discussion or confirming actions) that you've met it, or you start a new discussion to review the previous decision. VanIsaacWS 11:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
There's a big difference between:
  1. Looking for an article, seeing it was merged, and then unmerging it to improve it; and
  2. Looking for an article, seeing it was merged, undoing that and walking away
The latter is unproductive, and rare is the day that an unqualified call of "no consensus" has had any value on this project.
Anyway, moving forward: typically, this is resolved in the long run (if editors continue to filibuster) by AfDing the articles up for merging and then, assuming that the AfD closes with consensus to merge, protecting the redirects. This is a horde of red tape to go through, but it's the closest thing we have to a formal process for dealing with it.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I would point out that Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is de-stubbed (triple the length it had when the merge was originally proposed), reliably sourced, and would almost certainly pass AfD as keep. -- 202.124.74.150 (talk) 11:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
True. It's been suggested to me that the IP is in fact the banned editor User:Alastair Haines who has edited both of these articles and created Danvers Statement. Dougweller (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I am not, in fact, Alastair Haines, although obviously that would be difficult to prove. -- 202.124.74.150 (talk) 12:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
And I would like to strongly protest the deletion of the sourced, notable material I've added to Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. -- 202.124.74.150 (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
It was me who reverted the changes to the CBMW article, and as I said on the other talk page, I would like for you to make those edits in the merged location at complementarianism where they can be peer reviewed. I was uncomfortable making the move myself as part of the merge because I thought it would result in an implied endorsement of the edits not present in the original discussion to merge. We wouldn't have had this problem if you had not unilaterally reverted the merge. I will maintain your content within a comment tag for you to merge the content to its proper home if you choose, or so it returns if/when the consensus says to undo the merge. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I would like to note that you both made the edits and removed the stub tag, there was no 3rd-party review that said 'yes, these are good additions and I feel the article is no longer a stub'. That might very well be the case, but the fact that you yourself removed the stub tag is not evidence in-and-of-itself that the article is no longer a stub. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring and conflict of interest of Community Security Trust[edit]

Community Security Trust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While doing new page patrol, I came across Support Trustee Limited, which seemed to me to be a fork from Community Security Trust, so I changed it to a redirect. I then reviewed the history of Community Security Trust, and discovered an edit war that had been going on unnoticed for a few days. It also appears that one of the edit warriors, User:Commsectrust has an obvious conflict of interest, given the username.

I really only accidentially discovered the history of this article, and I don't have time to mediate an edit war, etc. Can an admin look in on this page, deal with the SPA, and maybe throw a semi-protection in place? Singularity42 (talk) 14:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Softerblock in place for that editor. Can't look at the rest right now; perhaps some other kind soul can. Drmies (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Some of this stuff has spread to Geoffrey Alderman - that article needs some eyes and some love. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

User blocked without being blocked?[edit]

Can an Administrator have a chat with User_talk:Jobin_RV - it seems that he is blocked from editing pages but I can't see any block message on his page or in his page history - he was able to edit talkpages but now says that is locked to him as well. As I don't have the broom, I can't really him very much with this issue if it is either a) some technical issue or b) a block that has gone wrong somehow. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he is editing through a hardblocked, talk-page disabled IP or IP range? A checkuser would be necessary to rule that out, I think. NW (Talk) 14:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
It was just an IP autoblock. Unfortunately this is an unavoidable and necessary inconvenience that can come about when we try to enforce blocks at the IP level (which we really have to do most of the time). Collateral damage for these blocks happens all the time. When a person is blocked that way, they're given instructions on how to properly request an unblock but he must not have noticed or understood the instructions. The autoblock has since been lifted. -- Atama 22:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

ALL-CAPS text in Towel[edit]

Text slipped past recent-changes patrollers and bots: What are the appropriate notice-board(s) for the following incident. The patrollers failed to correct the addition of the bolded, 2-word phrase "HORRIBLE WEBSITE" near the top of article "Towel" as added by an IP in Australia at 09:00, 9 September 2011 (diff-5578), but reverted 3 days later. The phrase remained during most of 3 days, with about 900 pageviews. I think this incident reveals an anti-vandalism loophole. Perhaps expanding the team coverage, for recent-changes review, would help to correct such problems in the future. I thought that anti-vandalism bots would detect insertions of "ALL-CAPITAL-LETTERS" text, or have been shutdown(?). Otherwise, perhaps it is time to semi-protect all articles with pageviews > 200-per-day, after a single IP-numbered hack edit. Remind IP users that a username-login can remain remembered for a 30-day period in the current WP system. It is no longer necessary to use IP edits to avoid a login every day: one login can last for 30 days. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like you're proposing something ... so WP:VPP might just be the place. Can't fix it here, and one would have expected that at least one of the article's watchers might have caught it. Vandalism happens, every single editor is supposed to fix it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I hate to say it, but we can't catch 100% of the vandalism on Wikipedia. Catching it a few days later and reverting it is what matters in the long run. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I was the one who reverted this vandalism, and there is a whole thread on this at Jimbo's talk page, discussing possible solutions etc etc etc... there is no admin action, and lets try not to split the convo please ;). --Cerejota (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocked editor returning as IP[edit]

In a discussion at Talk:George Carlin, an IP editor has admitted to previously being a blocked editor who made (and refused to retract) legal threats. He did so here [21]. While he seems to be editing in good faith and discussion at this time, I still thought I should at least bring it here for admin attention. Thanks in advance for your help. Dayewalker (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Without taking this opportunity to retract the legal threats, this user should not be here at all. VanIsaacWS 19:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Good (and necessary) block ... the block is against the person, no matter how they edit. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Niabot[edit]

Niabot recently updated his/her userpage in protest, and it was nominated for deletion in what is apparently good faith by PCock (talk · contribs). Niabot has proceeded to edit war to remove the notice or place it at the bottom of the page under the header "Invalid claim and vandalism by PCock" ([22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]). Other users have explained that this is inappropriate (via templates, via polite messages, via less polite messages), and been met with the usual wikilawyering and reversions. Throughout this, Niabot has been incredibly abusive, with threats, and accusations of vandalism, general aggression and so on. I'd block Niabot for general disruption myself, but I'm probably "involved" now, so I'll leave it in your hands... J Milburn (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear: Yes, my nomination was a good-faith action. Had I been aware of some German editors' threats of disruption surrounding a certain WMF proposal, I might have anticipated the WP:BATTLEGROUND response and proceeded differently. Peacock (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Carefully trying not to inflame the situation further ... but, unless the account is a bot, aren't usernames that end in "bot" not permitted anyway? Deli nk (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
It isn't. See: [29] --Niabot (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
the bruhaha surounding the issue aside - the page and mfd are worth a visit. Agathoclea (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
If someone does not notice a caricature as a caricature, then i can't help him. But i have to leave a comment about ganging up against a single user (well known supporters of the image filter) and it's own user page. It contains a single caricature and link to the German poll, that the WMF tries to ignore, in face of the image filter "referendum". Since i found the banner disrupting i moved it to the bottom, and declared that this deletion request is an attack against my opinion and therefore vandalism of my user page, repeatedly changed by this group of users. --Niabot (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of what you think, Niabot, the XfD templates go on the top of every single page they're used on. Don't move it again.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Niabot, the MfD isn't the issue here, in fact it has already been closed as "snow keep." Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 20:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too worried about the "threat", since it's merely a threat to open an AN/I thread, and I'm not too concerned about whether {{mfd}} is above or below the image being debated... but Niabot definitely needs some education as to what vandalism isn't. 28bytes (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I have dropped a note on their talk page to that effect. It looks the {{mfd}} location is a moot point now, as Salvio has closed the MFD. 28bytes (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
As for the other issue this should clear it up. Agathoclea (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

So, what, we ignore the edit warring, wikilawyering, abuse and general cluelessness, and just wait until it happens again next week? This is hardly the first time Niabot has shown that (s)he has severe difficulty comprehending that others may have different opinions without being vandals... J Milburn (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I've seen Wikipedia:Mentorship work well for some users that have trouble comprehending Wikipedia policies on their own. Deli nk (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Must I provide the cross and fire wood myself, or is this just an attempt to silence the opposition (just in case, of course). --Niabot (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
You have not been silenced. But you will be blocked if you continue to edit-war or make spurious accusations of vandalism. Hopefully you won't do either of those things anymore and we can close this thread. 28bytes (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I did not speak about the discussions after the deletion request was inserted. --Niabot (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
What does that even mean? J Milburn (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikilawyering over precisely where the objectionable comments were made. Anyway, we're done here. The MfD is closed, and Niabot's behaviour will be monitored more closely in future. Any future blatantly inappropriate accusations of vandalism will almost certainly result in swift blocks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Or maybe we all need education that vandalism is defined as "any edit in which another user disagrees with". –MuZemike 21:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism and slanderous commentary added to Ektoise page[edit]

Resolved: whilst discussion takes place on notabiity at article talk page. User is - correctly - blocked for NLT. Article AfDed

New user Buddhifer is persistently editing the page for Ektoise, adding derogatory and personal comments about the group. The information has not been backed up with any references and has been implemented in a scattershot manner without any use of standard formatting.

The content is clearly intended as an act of vandalism as no attempt has been made to support any of the claims and several of the edits made at 4:18, 13 September are of aesthetic value only and seem to have been executed for the sole purpose of making the page appear to be improperly formatted. Several attempts to correct the vandalism have been re-edited by the user, with the degree of vandalism increasing each time the page is re-edited.Tetsuo the cat (talk) 04:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you please provide some DIFFS of some of the vandalistic edits? I can't tell from your most recent edit to that page where the "vandalism" is. Dayewalker (talk) 04:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
[30], [31], [32], [33] and [34] will prolly suffice, although thats only about half of them. Seems like a disgruntled former fan or member. Heiro 04:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I gave them a warning and directed them to the article talk page. Also, Tetsuo the cat, you are required to inform editors when posting about them on ANI. I have done this for you. Also, it would have been nice if you had tried to contact them before coming here. Heiro 05:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
My apologies, this is the first time I've had this sort of thing happen, I'll read through the procedure more thoroughly so I can do it properly if anything like this arises again Tetsuo the cat (talk) 05:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
HR, it looks like you were right [35] about the editor's motivation. Good call. Dayewalker (talk) 05:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I took to 3rr noticeboard after their last revert of me, since they are way past 3. So, if anyone wants to deal with this guy.....Be my guest. Heiro 05:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
(e/c)In the future he can be reported to WP:AIV for a quick block. Noformation Talk 05:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
(Somehow your last EC removed my last post, restoring) Wow, hadn't had a chance to look at that yet, upping it to LEGAL threats I guess. Shouldnt be long now. Heiro 05:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
And the crazy just keeps on coming haha. Reported to AIV. Noformation Talk 05:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Whilst the user clearly needs to be blocked, they are absolutely correct in that the history of the band has been airbrushed from our article, presumably by sources close to the current incarnation of the band. The article is, as a result, now very misleading. I'm going to work now, but I'll fix that shortly. I'm also not sure that the band is actually notable at all, given that all of their releases appear to be CD-Rs on their own label, but that's a separate issue. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't this addition to ANI by User:Buddhifer be considered a legal threat and the user be indeffed immediately? VanIsaacWS 07:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Guess he was.VanIsaacWS
(edit conflict)The user has been indeffed per NLT. Having just looked at the article in question, I'm not sure that it meets WP:BAND, so I've PRODded it. Mjroots (talk) 07:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I felt that notability was established through the group's involvement with the international electronic scene, including working with several established artists. Also there are numerous references that are independant of the group themselves. I can understand that notability would be questioned as the group is not signed to a major label but the music industry is at a point now where many acts are following the lead of Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead and releasing their own music independantly of a major and this will likely become more evident on Wikipedia as time goes on. Tetsuo the cat (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Seems to me, then, that User:Buddhifer was a victim of WP:DOLT. If true, then this should be used as a learning experience for the involved editors, and not dismissed so quickly. --64.85.216.130 (talk) 08:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I think it's actually the exact opposite of the scenario in WP:DOLT. The editor in question is using WP as a means of promoting what could be considered defamatory and slanderous claims - claims that are distinctly and unambiguously unsourced. Prior to this editor's additions, this was a very neutrally written article that was well sourced, and presented a narration that seems consistent with those sources. There was nothing even about this particular person in the article. Now there seems to be a considerable history between this editor and the subject of t