Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive739

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

Noticeboard archives



This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I've just redacted some comments from a discussion. Would an admin please peruse and revdel if appropriate? [1] Sorry, I haven't read that policy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it should be revdeled; I don't even think you should have removed the comments of numerous other editors at all. GiantSnowman 12:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
OK GiantSnowman. What are we meant to do when someone does that to an editor? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Speaking to the editors in question, to see if they will remove/re-word it themselves - if they won't, and you still feel it's inappropriate, bring it to a noticeboard for wider discussion. GiantSnowman 13:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
One of the editors has already offered to remove his comment. The other editor appears to be offline. For now, given the nature of the comments, I've removed the subthread and will respect whatever consensus emerges once that editor has had a chance to comment. He is a supporter of the subject and I expect that he'll facepalm and agree, given how the subject has responded. Thank you for your advice. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
No, I agreed to the removal of section on the conditions that the other editor agreed and that the section requesting removal was also deleted. Removing one without the other will just cause people to assume that I was the one who attempted to introduce the content in the first place. Fæ is an admin - I think he knows how to get something revdeleted. This is simply drawing more attention to the questioned material. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with your last point and regretted posting here but when I came back to delete the comment, Snowman had already responded. (Can I delete this section, Snowman?) I doubt anyone would object to removal of Fae's thread, DC, especially Fae, if removal of Wnt's thread is contingent on it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Let's not delete this thread - instead I've closed it so that will get automatically archived within 24 hours. Hope that's a good compromise. GiantSnowman 14:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Deaths of Lawrence and Glenna Shapiro looking for a reversion to another's edit[edit]

This isn't a matter for administrative intervention. Rklawton (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In Deaths of Lawrence and Glenna Shapiro an edit was made here that i do not agree with [2]

i seek to have the edit reverted.

the following is the talk page discussion:
"== Name and details of those arrested =="

There is much explicit detail given of the criminal history of those charged. I am mindful of WP:BLPCRIME which states "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime when the person has not yet been convicted." In what way is Wikipedia enhanced by such explicit detail at this stage of criminal proceedings? I am interested in the opinion of other editors. WWGB (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

i could agree with you but to me the matter is too include details since it shows the nature of each of the accused crimes and their proximity to the victims-- (talk) 09:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
plus, unlike most crimes - this one accuses many perpetrators and the story told on wiki would not be accurate if al those involved were not included - think of the Charles Manson murders and try to tell the story with just manson himself alone - it would not be an accurate one-- (talk) 09:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
the disclaimer is "those relatively unknown" but all have criminal records and thus none were unconvicted (thus their names were part of the public record by their own actions and signed guilty admissions) before this week-- (talk) 09:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

i believe that "For people who are relatively unknown," is the conditional part of an if-then clause and that the crimianl history of the accused is a matter of public record and thereby excludes their anominity since the first part of the sentence in the if-then clause fails-- (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

OK folks, this one belongs on the article's talk page and not here. If you'd like more opinions, you can submit a request for comment. This page is for action that only administrators can take - such as protecting an article or blocking an account. Rklawton (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Possible WP:AE issue[edit]

Warning issued and logged
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The above IP is an WP:SPA account who has made a total of 11 edits to Wikipedia in the last year of which 1 was to article space and the rest were to talk pages. All articles edited are within the scope of WP:ARBMAC and WP:ARBMAC2 and all edits are inflammatory an WP:SOAP-y in violation of the above mentioned ARBCOM cases; there has not been a single constructive edit from this user. I didn't file anything at WP:AE since this editor has never been active enough to actually receive a warning regarding their edits being in violation.

Is there an administrator willing to issue a formal ARBCOM warning to this IP? If they stop being disruptive, great. If they continue with this type of editing, we can report them to AE but at least they'll have been warned. Big Bird (talkcontribs) 17:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I issed a formal warning and then logged the warning on ARBMAC. -- Atama 18:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Harassment by User:Lihaas[edit]

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

Resolved: interaction ban in place Toddst1 (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Lihaas is harassing me at my talk page and spreading information about me to another user I have been in dispute with to try to get me in trouble. I told this user to cease posting on my talk page, I do not want a discussion with this user because I fundamentally do not want to converse with someone who is a self-described fascist and a self-described National Socialist (aka Nazi) on his user page, I know Holocaust survivors and I do not want to be faced with conversation with a neo-Nazi. I told the user to stop posting on my talk page, he has persisted with threats to get me in trouble over a statement in which I informed users on an issue involving discussion of the Albanian-Serb ethnic conflict in Kosovo that he is promoting a POV because he represents an extreme perspective on the issue - he staunchly supports Serbia's sovereignty over Kosovo as stated in a userbox on his user page as well as other controversial taking-sides on multiple nationalist conflicts, and mentioned that he is a self-described Nazi. I left that discussion a month ago, the issue is over. I do not want Lihaas commenting on my page, out of respect to the Holocaust survivors I have met and respect - I have heard from an elderly Polish Jewish man I knew who survived Treblinka as a 12-13 year old boy who worked there as a slave labourer and saw his friend of the same age have is face and body smashed to a bloody pulp dead by Nazi guards because he was a few minutes late for a routine in the camp. I demand the right to not be harassed on my talk page after I have told the user in question to cease, by a person who fundamentally stands against every moral value I hold dear and out of the respect of Holocaust survivors and their relatives that I have met who survived horrific brutality by the Nazis.--R-41 (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Lihaas' infoboxes, whilst ill-advised, are clearly meaningless. He has many contradictory infoboxes, including being from India and Pakistan, being supportive of Palestinian independence and a single state solution, and being in favour of self-determination for all and the resurrection of the British Empire, being for Scottish independence and a federal UK. Despite this you have repeatedly accused him of being a Nazi in this discussion. He also has one claiming that "Lihaas totally supports world peace and loves everyone!" I don't see why he should be forbidden from your talk page, but I think he needs to sort his infoboxes out as this has caused other editors to make similar attacks before. Number 57 20:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
57, Lihaas's user boxes are not the problem here (though I grant you that it's an electron-consuming 223,181 bytes-long mess). Please don't muddy the waters. A user has a right to ask another user to stay away, and that should be respected. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually I think this is exactly the problem. Based on the infobox, R-41 has repeatedly called Lihaas a Nazi. Lihaas then issues a warning not to make personal attacks, leading to this spurious claim of harassment. If it wasn't for the stupid infobox, none of this would have happened. Number 57 20:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Which infobox? There's a million there. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
The one that says "This user is a National Socialist". Number 57 20:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
You're shitting: there actually is one like that? I'll have to use Ctrl+f to find it. Drmies (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
You are correct, 57. I've asked Lihaas on their talk page to remove that. I have no objection to anyone being righteously offended enough to take it down. Honestly, I didn't think there were people stupid enough to have shit like that out in the open somewhere. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • [ec] [Also, all the Nazi-calling confused me: I reworded my comments.] Let's please focus on the issue. One should not derive Naziness from user boxes, unless on has a "I'm a Nazi" user box. But even that is beside the point. The issue is this: please point to a precise diff where you told Lihaas to not post at your talk page again (preferably you told them on your talk page). Also, I don't see harassment in their posts to you yet. I have the feeling this is going to end with "please both steer clear of each other" or a more formal interaction ban. Please show us that diff, quickly, so we can move on and see what possible violations of that request may have taken place. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
He is a self-described fascist and a self-described "National Socialist", look at the userboxes - yes there are many, but they are there. I am asking for the right for me not to be harassed by a user - I told the user to cease posting on my talk page and he has refused to accept this. I have deem moral sympathy to the Holocaust survivor for his suffering by the Nazis, and I do not want to be forced to accept harassment by a self-described fascist and national socialist. I want him to NOT be able to post on my talk page because he has violated by request to cease this.--R-41 (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but he is not harassing you. On the other hand, you seem to be creating a lot of drama recently. Number 57 20:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
True, 57. Enough already, R-41. Bringing Holocaust survivors into this is totally unsavory. You have not been able to provide a diff in which you clearly ask them not to post on your talk page again, and this stuff about what their user boxes are supposed to say is a. neither here nor there and b. irritating (even more so than the million user boxes). Here's what I propose: You place a note on your own talk page and on theirs asking them not to post on your talk page again. You don't even have to ask nicely. From then on, Lihaas will not post on your talk page again. Simple. Lihaas, if you're reading this, please do not post on R-41's talk page again. Let's close this thread. Oh, R-41, one more thing: stop calling people Nazis (unless you can prove that they, or God, say that they're one) or be blocked for a personal attack. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Whaddayaknow--here's the notification. If I understand it correctly, you said in the post before that that you never wanted to post on their talk page again, and then you posted on their talk page that you didn't want them to post on your talk page again or have any other conversation with them anymore. And then you called them a neo-Nazi and a fascist (and maybe some other things, but who the hell is counting). R-41, you have given yourself a complete interaction ban with them (voluntarily!), which may be enforced by any admin who sees you interacting with Lihaas. Wonderful: this thread can be closed. Just to make sure, I'll post on Lihaas's talk page, ahem, that R-41 et cetera. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's see: Lihaas has a collection of infoboxes which in toto are obviously self-contradictory/sarcastic/amusing, but in isolation can be read the wrong way. Nothing surprising here. WP:SARCASM and other subtle hints may backfire on the internets. R-41 brings drama to the main drama board. Again, not terribly surprising. As you were! ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

So you are calling me a "drama queen" and say that this is "not terribly surprising". The user is a self-described National Socialist harassing me. If I was a Jew would you laugh off a National Socialist posting repeatedly on my talk page after telling them to stop. Go ahead and laugh, go and try to laugh off National Socialism as not significant here, even though many people are more than offended tha it killed millions of people because of their ethnic background, if you think it is a joke of the sufferings upon this Jewish man I mentioned - who used to be a neighbour of mine - are insignificant to my moral objections - then I wonder if you take anything seriously. Bottom line, I learned my education about the Holocaust by that elderly Jewish man who survived Treblinka before I learned it in school, and I do not want to talk with a person who in their userboxes says they are a fascist and a National Socialist.--R-41 (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

  • For the record, Lihaas has objected to anachronistic and European-centric understandings of the phrase "national socialism". Americans who remember President George H. W. Bush leading crowds in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance should recall witnessing a nationalist socialist revival.
    There were discussions of Lihaas's contradictory user-boxes and his objections to mono-semantic understanding of nationalism & socialism before at ANI, my RfC, and even (in a particularly dull moment for WP administrators) in my block record.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Harassment? He insults me on his presumptious whim and im harrassing? I was simply bringing (in polite forms) to his attention that there was hypocrisy to his ACTIONS in that HE harrassed said user with restating a section on the ta;lk page simply because he wanted to see it...not that it was his right.
From harassment he goes on to a nazi accusation and he says IM harrassing him? is thta serious?! I duly brought it to hsi attention of whathe did, he also posts on my page and then says im harrassing him?
Then he brings about a new call to carry out some personal vendetta that he is offended by the CLAIM (unsubstantiated) that im a nazi and he should get offended he were a jew? Then in that case anuone whyo proclaims to be an australian, from the americas or from an imperialist state with a record of killing MILLIONS in a genocide far bigger should get offended with the offensive userbox being removed?!Lihaas (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Retirement following violation of interaction ban[edit]

User:R-41 has announced retirement, following placing another rant against Lihaas on my talk page. *Sigh*  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Another rant has been deposited on my doorstep.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Still, the "This user is a National Socialist" userbox may be disruptive in itself[edit]

User has revised user box to avoid misunderstandings or provocation. User has discussed revising the user page, responding to concerns.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The userbox itself is clearly causing strife among Wikipedians. Per Wikipedia:UP#Excessive unrelated content perhaps Lihaas should be asked to remove it. As Kiefer.Wolfowitz points out, it has come up before. I recall that User:Hail the Dark Lord Satan‎‎ was indef blocked recently for causing disruption by choosing a divisive persona. This issue isn't very far from that. Disputes about the meaning of national socialism (which Kiefer mentioned above) should be resolved on the redirect's talk page, not via userboxes that are prone to misinterpretation and may cause unnecessary aggravation of some good faith editors or just act as flamebait. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between having a divisive username and putting a userbox proclaiming your political orientation, controversial or not, on one's own userpage. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
See WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. The use of the National Socialist userbox is highly problematic, divisive and should be removed. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 22:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Nearly any userbox which exists should allowed be placed on userpages. If you think the userbox violates those policies, you should propose the template itself for MFD. If the userbox is hard-coded, then it should just be removed. NW (Talk) 23:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
It was hard-coded in this instance. I can't imagine a userbox template like that to survive for long. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 23:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────There is now a Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lihaas. Probably not much else for admins to do here now. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

[Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington seems to misunderstand that soapboxing is for user pages vs. articles. What is the pt of userboxes? One can remove all userboxes in that case. Or delete all articles of offensiv content (a la Mohammed cartoons), regardless of whether the euro worldcview deems itokey then,.
Unstead of meaningless arguements over someone think-skin need to censor what is not likes it would be MUCH more productive to go on adding content to pages itself.Lihaas (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Why is this user permitted to edit? Hipocrite (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
What does that mean? does that comment firther anything. Lihaas (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The entire user-page was disruptive[edit]

A 220kb user page, consisting mainly of transcluded userboxes (*spit*) is disruptive in and of itself, and I have blanked it. Hipocrite (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The userboxes were not the problem - the massive wall of text, on the other hand... - The Bushranger One ping only 22:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the blanking. I checked out the userboxes and found that they tended to contradict each other, making their use almost meaningless. 220kb userbox pages? That's absurd. Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Umm there are numerous user pages and subpages that go on and on and on. If you dont like dont read it, its not an articleLihaas (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
You clearly are not getting the point, Lihaas. Drmies (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
No YOU areclearly not getting the pt. 1 . its not unrelated to WP if you see thae page, 2. size doesnt warrant disruption, 3. blanking is vandalism especially per IDONTLIKEIT.Lihaas (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
You have just demonstrated that you are not getting the point. →Στc. 03:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I am concerned about the comments about Lihaas above, e.g. "Why is he allowed to edit?", per WP:NPA and WP:Civility.
Lihaas spends most of his time writing about contemporary political events, always with a great concern for the weakest or worst treated, as a traditional humanitarian. His conflicts often have arisen because he has been outraged by a lack of attention given to non-European and non-Biblical victims (in comparison). In word and deed, he is obviously opposed to the fascist celebration of humiliation and degradation of the weak and the nihilist worship of power.
In the past, Lihaas has reminded us that nationalism and socialism have been intertwined before, after, and outside of the (German) Nazi party, especially outside of Europe. The user-box was, ineffectively and counterproductively, part of that legitimate exercise, I believe.
In this light, please consider whether the hysterics (apparently exclusively by men) were needed or constructive here. Lihaas has been editing some of the most contentious articles on Wikipedia for years, and really has made a great contribution to the project. (Nobody has claimed that he or anybody else is flawless, of course.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I suggested that Lihaas rephrase his user box, and he has, now clarifying that he is "a democratic national[ist] socialist and not a Nazi", etc.
Most of us are more responsive when approached in a conversational manner by a colleague or friend, and few of us respond well to shouting or being denounced.
I wish that those who have written impulsively or wrongly consider apologizing to Lihaas (who has been called a "Nazi" on many pages now)---or help edit one of his articles as private penance.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Evidence that what I stated about Lihaas was honest from what I observed from his user page and that claims that I personally attacked him are false[edit]

Please, drop the stick. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please read through all of the following, it is a clear revoking of the claim that I personally attacked Lihaas by "slurring" him as a fascist and a Nazi. I have decided to retire from Wikipedia because of administrators' mishandling of the report I put in, in which I took most of the blame for accusations that are false. Drmies, you accused be of personal attack after I stated to Lihaas that I had nothing in common with him because of his stated association with fascism and National Socialism that I refer to as "Nazism" as it is on Wikipedia. Now you and others claim that maybe he is misrepresenting himself - that he meant to say that he is a "democratic nationalist socialist" - - first of all he states on his user page that he is a fascist - and bear in mind that National Socialism as on Wikipedia and in many scholarly works is recognized as a form of fascism. If there is any question as to whether I falsely claimed he was a fascist and Nazi (in the sense of the broader "National Socialism") - look at this userbox on his page: User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Fascist

The infoboxes repeatedly state "National Socialist" as "NS" on multiple infoboxes. He also has other infoboxes that support far-right ultranationalist political parties- that indicate even further that he is aligned with fascism and National Socialism (as in Nazism), such as:

Arpadflagga hungary.pngThis user supports Jobbik.
- Jobbik is a far right Hungarian ultranationalist movement with a paramilitary movement called Magyar Gárda (Hungarian Guard) - it is anti-Semitic - it accuses Israel of "buying up" Hungary and its paramilitary group attacks Romani (Gypsy) people. Hungary's former Prime Minister described Jobbik's Magyar Gárda it as "neo-fascist" and "neo-Nazi".
Flag of Bulgaria.svgThis user supports Ataka.
- Ataka - Greek short form for National Union Attack - far-right Bulgarian nationalist movement - acknowledged by all parliamentary parties as a xenophobic movement and a national threat to Bulgaria's ethnic minorities, it known for hate speech, the Ataka's leader's son sent an anti-Romani email to members of the European Parliament - sniding that Hungary is "full" of Romani.
Flag of Greece.svgThis user supports LA.O.S.
L.A.O.S. short form for Popular Orthodox Rally - a far-right Greek nationalist movement - it opposes any immigration from outside the European Union

True, he has contradictory userboxes - it may mean he is politically confused or has mixed opinions. Bottom line, from the statements of his userboxes, he is not merely a nationalistic socialist, his userboxes make clear that he is a fascist National Socialist and that he supports multiple far-right ultranationalist political parties - two of which have promoted xenophobia towards ethnic minorities - Jobbik towards Jews and Romani, and Ataka towards Romani. When Lihaas started confronting me, I stated on Lihaas' userpage that I fundamentally opposed his views and do not want to associate with him or talk with him because of those views - that is my choice and my right not to be forced to accept unwanted postings on my talk page. I don't care whether he wants to keep them or not, I think he has the right of personal liberty to post his political views - but he should not expect everyone to respect his stated support of fascism, National Socialism, and far-right ultranationalist movements - as I said, I do not want to talk with a person who adheres to such views.

I am preparing my final retirement from Wikipedia so please respond here, but I want an apology for administrators' mishandling of this, I was honest and stating what he himself posted on his user page when I said he was a fascist and a Nazi, his userpage says that he "is a Fascist" and that he "is a National Socialist" and his support of Jobbik and other far-right ultranationalist parties - just put those together in your mind and take note where the term National Socialism redirects to on Wikipedia: Nazism - and I referred to Nazism in its general form of an ideology and its continuation in a general form as neo-Nazism. Lihaas may claim that he does not support German Nazism, but when I first noticed these tendencies on his talk page - I noticed the anti-Romani, anti-Semitic Jobbik movement first of all, then looked on and saw the other two infoboxes I mentioned. He is a self-described fascist and supports the exact kind of political movements that advocate the very elements of Nazism that I find morally reprehensible in my opinion - I do not want to talk with someone who supports far-right ultranationalist movements like Jobbik or Ataka that promote xenophobia - that is my choice not to talk to the person and my right not to have the person talk to me after I have told them not to.--R-41 (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

obvious sock[edit]

Brought by one user, block initiated by a second, case closed by a third - Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resolved: :blocked for 1 week for trolling by Future Perfect at Sunrise, then indefinitely blocked as open proxy Toddst1 (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC) (talk · contribs) seems to be someone logged out to post to ANI. Would someone uninvolved in the discussion above take a look please? Toddst1 (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It appears I am a trolling sock. (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
It also appears I am not worthy of being notified of this thread, as it utterly required. My talkpage is still a redlink. Todd, what gives? (talk) 06:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Stop the DRAMAZ PLS. Buffs (talk) 06:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Maybe Drmies had a good idea above. Full protect ANI? Someguy1221 (talk) 07:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
You know, it's times like these when I am reminded what "ani" means in Italian.--Shirt58 (talk) 07:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The Spam and Open Relay Blocking System has flagged this IP address as an open proxy. Toddst1 (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
You cant close somethign with a block when you initiated and are hence involved. Furthermore, this is for the SOCK board to investigate not ANI.
And more so with the link posted above.Lihaas (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks by IP user[edit]

Blocks enacted, case closed. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Sascha30, who now exclusively edits under IP addresses, has been posting personal attacks on Talk:Foreign relations of South Sudan.
There was this post [3] by User: where I was accused of being an "Internet-tyrant" and the "Putin of Wikipedia". Sascha was then warned about personal attacks by User:Chipmunkdavis: [4]. I was then called a b*****d: [5] by the same IP address. Later, User: (almost certainly the same person) called User:Kudzu1 a "m*****f***ing a*****e": [6].
Sascha has previously edited on Talk:Foreign relations of South Sudan, Talk:International recognition of South Sudan, and Talk:Foreign relations of Montenegro (mostly with erratic and uncivil posts) under the following IP addresses:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, (where he referred to someone as an "arrogant jerk": [7]),, and
I request that an administrator blocks some or all of the above IP addresses due to the personal attacks. Regards, Bazonka (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Usually signs his demands rants posts with "Sascha,Germany". His last comment to Kudzu1 was particularly disgusting. Nightw 21:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Surely some clever person can apply a range block here. No doubt, the half dozen edits I looked at are disruptive. How does the cabal (and the peanut gallery) feel about semi-protecting those talk pages? I hate doing that all by my lonesome, since (for some odd reason, maybe) I find it more drastic than protecting articles (I've seen IPs post tons of good suggestions on article talk pages)--but perhaps we have no choice here. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • To quote a wise admin: Give into temptation. You have my blessing. Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • If the rangeblock is successfully applied, no lock is needed. CityOfSilver 23:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Sure, but if I knew how to do a range block I would have done it already. I don't want to risk a virtual Armageddon--I'm already a menace to the security of the first world with my "block" button. Drmies (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
        • The relevant range to catch all the IPs quoted above would be, which would block 16,384 addresses. Unfortunately the collateral damage would be rather excessive, so as the lesser of two evils I've semiprotected Talk:Foreign relations of South Sudan for one month. I (or Drmies or any other admin I expect!) would be willing under the circumstances to extend that to other talk pages as necessary. Hope this helps, EyeSerenetalk 17:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

───────────────────────── It might be worth creating a Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sascha30 and tagging all the IPs accordingly, as we have done with perennial nuisance Zombie433 and many others. His list grows almost daily. GiantSnowman 17:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. As a largely administrative matter (in the bureaucratic sense) I've indefblocked the Sascha30 account and tagged it as a sock-puppeteer. There has apparently already been a previous SPI, now archived, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sascha30. The IPs just need tagging now with {{IPsock|Sascha30|blocked=yes}} and the category you've redlinked should self-populate. I'll make a start from the beginning of the list :-) EyeSerenetalk 18:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Done. EyeSerenetalk 18:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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


No formal intervention required at this stage. Note left for editor concerned. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Was reluctant to come back here so quickly but i believe this may warrant something. I came across him in this edit that removed protection templates, tags and reverted MOS dates. He then reverted a title that TWO other editors added without explanation (as is the norm for his edits). Another editors' changes were reverted (As his right, i agree BUT he shopuld explain) (this too. He then has these 3 simultaneous edits repeating the same thing (confusingly enough) without reason:[8][9][10]Lihaas (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  • You're dealing with an uncommunicative and somewhat amateurish editor who presumably is of good will, but I'm trying to look at this positively. There's nothing for an admin to do here at this moment--problem edits should be handled first, on an individual basis, and, second, if they persist should be treated as disruptive, at which point WP:AIV is an appropriate place; IMO, persistent, unexplained, anti-MOS, and anti-consensus edits are vandalism. But they may also fall foul of the 3R line. Right now, all seems well with the world; I propose someone else look at this report and either correct me or close it per WP:Fluffernutter. Drmies (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I've left them a note but I agree with Drmies that it's perhaps too early for formal admin intervention just yet. EyeSerenetalk 08:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Suspected as such but was at loose ends as to what to do because it seemed more than dodgy with the repetition. ALls well that ends well.
Pretty much all that was sought anyways.Lihaas (talk) 10:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Lihaas, I hope this helped. Might as well keep an eye on the situation; drop me a line for individual edits, offenses, and repeat offenses if you think that's necessary. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Talk:Rind et al. controversy and user: Radvo consistently failing to comply with talk page guidelines[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Radvo (talk · contribs) blocked. Contact arbitration committee for details. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Radvo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is a fairly new editor who has been editing Rind et al. controversy and posting frequently on talk:Rind et al. controversy. I, and other editors, have spoken with him regarding the length of his posts and his continued insertion of irrelevant material: 1 2, 3, 4, 5. He continues to post exceedingly lengthy posts, so bad that the article talk page in question is now very difficult to read due to many walls of text.

He recently posted on the talk page what I think is a draft of a welcome notice for editors to the article. I know it's a long read, but I saw it as very problematic and battlefieldy, and in my eyes, should not have remained on the article talk page (for a start it suggests that any new editors editing the article will be accused of being a pedophile) so I moved it to his talk page along with a message, a decision I do not regret although I understand that Radvo is much displeased with me. He posted on the article talk page here saying that my removal of his post was a violation of etiquette and copyright law. I initially responded there, then realised that it was simply further clogging the article talk with off-topic mess and moved my response to Radvo's talk.

I think my handling of the situation has been less than perfect and messy; I'm not at all experienced in this area. I would really, really appreciate it if some seasoned editors could look over Radvo's talk page posts and the post which I moved. I believe he does want to improve the article but his attitude I find greatly troubling and problematic. Many editors have referred to and linked the talk page guidelines but he shows no signs of having read them or complying with them. OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 04:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I have informed Radvo of this thread here. OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 04:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
    • That's a hot mess. A few seasoned editors are already involved, but this may warrant some attention here. Radvo's edits are at the least soapboxy, containing possible legal threats. That welcome message is very inappropriate and I'm glad you removed it. Perhaps WP:COMPETENCE is applicable here. Drmies (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Radvo has left this on my talkpage. He is apparently quite convinced that I was wrong to move his post from the article talk. I rather get the sense that he does not hear anything I say to him. OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 05:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I saw it--totally unacceptable. But I gotta run, really. I'll leave it to others for now--but don't worry, Bugs is in charge. You and him should get along like a house on fire: I smell a carrot party coming up. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 06:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I am involved, and am concerned about recent trends which show that my efforts to explain procedures have failed. The article in question concerns a scientific paper which has been misused by pedophilia advocates and their opponents. I am hoping some enforcement procedures can be enacted, although I don't know what. A topic ban would do the trick, but that's a blunt instrument and would prevent Radvo from explaining exactly what the article needs (in this comment, Radvo stated "I have contacted Bruce Rind about this article in the past month", and Radvo has detailed knowledge of the topic). The extent of the problem can be seen in Radvo's recent message at User talk:Johnuniq#Stop teasing. What is your agenda? (my "agenda" had been questioned at the article talk, and I had responded that such a question should be on my talk page). There are several severe misunderstandings in that post: talk of agendas; accusation "your getting User: Ohbunnies to do your dirty work for you"; misinterpretation of other stuff. Text like "And hit you hard and make it painful, so you think before you take me on a second time" indicates that further responses from me are not going to be helpful.
To explain the mention of OohBunnies and dirty work: Radvo posted the "draft of a welcome notice" mentioned in the report above, and I responded by saying that the message would have to be moved to userspace, but it might not be suitable even there. Ninety minutes later, OohBunnies moved Radvo's post to the user's talk (OohBunnies had posted on Radvo's talk last December, before I was involved). The timing makes it look as if I had some arrangement with OohBunnies, but of course I was totally unaware of her at that stage. I have put a lot of time into attempting to explain procedures at Talk:Rind et al. controversy and User talk:Radvo, but unfortunately my first contributions involved confrontation with Radvo: My first post was to support WLU who had removed links to websites that advocate child rape (apparently the links had been provided because the sites host relevant material) (diff). My second post was to collapse another TLDR off-topic violation of the talk page guidelines (diff). Radvo's response was to post another rambling and off-topic wall of text, complete with two images with captions that read (in part) "Mastodons stopped trampling around on Wikipedia approximately 10,000 years ago" and "Ottoman surrender, bringing an end to WW I" (diff). I removed the last-mentioned post, and Radvo restored it.
Particularly in view of things like the "hit you hard" mentioned above, admin monitoring would be greatly appreciated. Johnuniq (talk) 07:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry if my timing made you look suspect to Radvo. I do believe we've never even spoken before. I'm afraid I simply read over Radvo's welcome message draft and decided to "be bold" or whatever it is and move it from there straight away - article talk pages are often happened upon by the curious reader and there were some very troubling things in it. OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 07:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Holy cow. Reading Radvo's contributions, I see personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, assumptions of conspiracy, borderline legal threats, assertions that other editors have no "standing" to challenge him, and demands that other editors jump through hoops and complete his recommended reading list before he will engage with them. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and the manner in which Radvo is editing is antithetical to that.

Radvo, here's the deal: either you can follow our rules and treat Wikipedia as an encyclopedia rather than a war zone, or you can go find another sandbox to play in. Under no circumstances will you be allowed to continue on as you have been, raging at and attacking everyone who you perceive as lesser than you. Please acknowledge here your intention to edit collegially from now on, or I will block you until you are able to make such an aknowledgment. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Possible returning sock[edit]

Closed as withdrawn. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Although currently refraining from posting here, Mistress Selina Kyle has suggested on her talkpage that User:MichelleBlondeau may be a returning sock of User:Cataconia, per this discussion. I have already filed an SPI on this user, thinking s/he was a sock of User:Lihaas; it seems I may have been mistaken. I will update the SPI as soon as I've notified the above parties of this thread, but it seemed as though this might be worth bringing up here again. Yunshui  15:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Forget about it; Versageek blocked them whilst I was posting the above message. Yunshui  15:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Threat of violence[edit]

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

Resolved: Blocked 72h by Reaper Eternal -FASTILY (TALK) 21:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

See User talk: Estonian vandal responding to warnings. Jojalozzo 18:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked without talkpage access for that bit of trolling. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Admin action requested - closures at TFD[edit]

Any change of a friendly lady or gent closing the deletion votes for userboxes I nominated at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_4 with a keep, the rationale something like WP:SNOW - nominator has decided to Keep based on the arguments of others, and everyone else agrees. Or other mots of votre choise Face-smile.svg

(I know I haven't provided said rationale there, but ANI Egg Centric is the same guy as TFD Egg Centric) Egg Centric 23:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm merrily clicking away on those happy little 'keep' thingies, but don't rightly see how to add a rationale. Ha, if I screw it up someone will fix it, no? Isn't that the spirit of Wikipedia? Drmies (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I have no way of telling if I did it right or not. Someone please fix it. I'll take a wikibreak, so I can claim innocence. Oh! the doorbell is ringing! Drmies (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've closed both discussions. -- Atama 00:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I missed the third one, closed that one too. -- Atama 01:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Is there a manual? I deleted one, I think successfully (please check--no, I deleted the template but didn't close the discussion). The little buttons, what do they do? I assume, Atama, that you closed it the same way you close an AfD? Drmies (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've never closed a TfD before, but yeah it's basically the same as AfD. I just followed what was written here. -- Atama 02:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


User given advice re posting OR. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sorry, I should be in bed (almost 7 am here), but I think that someone needs to explain that adding the same WP:OR to multiple articles isn't helpful - see Special:Contributions/CourtChru.. I can see little point in just reverting. Can someone with more tact than me (i.e. almost anyone) explain that this isn't what Wikipedia is for, point CourtChru in the general direction of Wikiversity, and then revert the edits? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Eeek. I just finished removing their other edits (before I had seen this report), and hoped that someone else would engage with the user because my patience level is currently a little low. Johnuniq (talk) 07:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I've just left a feedback response on the user's talkpage which pretty much covers Andy's suggestions above. Yunshui  08:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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


Wrong venue, directed to the correct one. Doc talk 10:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:3RR broken here - no discussion on that talk page or reply on IP's own, unreasonable behavior. Suggest block. SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:3RRNB is the place for this. Doc talk 07:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Edits with deliberately false summaries at NoScript ?[edit]

Edits reverted and article semiprotected. EyeSerenetalk 10:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Looks like deliberately deceiving abuse of edit summaries ( , Both IPs are in Italy so there may be some COI as well. Richiez (talk) 09:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected it for 3 days. Dougweller (talk) 10:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Archiving of Deleted Articles[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved: I'll userfy for her. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

My article was recently deleted for Vivid Racing. Are deleted articles archived somewhere, and is it possible to get it back or have it emailed to me so I can correct it?Betty Merm (talk) 04:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  • They are in a very mysterious place that's probably best referred to as Limbo. It was User:Fastily who deleted your article. Leave Fastily a note on their talk page (you've been there before) and ask them to "userfy" it for you. Drmies (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I suggested that User:Betty Merm post here, but that was before I read Fastily's response. Based on that, all I can suggest to the original poster is that you start again from scratch. – ukexpat (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
One of Fastily's terse responses. More words would have been welcome, yes--but if Betty Merm asks again I am sure Fastily will give her the time of day and a copy of the article. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
No need for Betty to jump through hoops; I'll restore the article to her user space, and leave some suggestions on her talk page. It will need a lot of work. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Editor redacting another's comment on this board[edit]

No admin is going to take action; this is the third time the thread is being closed. Please do not revert. --Rschen7754 18:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's mine. You are not just censoring language. You're removing valid comment, and changing the sense of comments. You need to stop. pablo 16:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
To restate and summarize, I concur with with you say about "changing the sense of comments." I also understand where Anthony is coming from. I just don't think he should be doing that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) I am a only a few synapses away from filing a request for the Civility Enforcement 2 arbitration case... ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Not a helpful comment (I'm assuming it's a humor attempt?) Nobody Ent 16:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Trust me, I have an evil plan to make ArbCom pass WP:Discretionary sanctions for ANI (participation). ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I concur with redacting off topic comments to keep things on track (in fact did so but was reverted). Tarc's comments are on topic and best left in place. Nobody Ent 16:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Anthony - as I advised you yesterday, you should not remove other editor's comments that you find offensive/disagree with. Instead you should have asked Tarc to remove their comments themselves, which would have been an amicable solution. Instead we now have moar dramaz. GiantSnowman 16:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Such censoring, redacting, refactoring of others' comments will never lead to anything but moar moar drahmazzz. pablo 16:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
In the country where I live, the newspapers are full of the words "fuck", "cunt", and the like. This is normal here. Perhaps I'm right in assuming that Anthony lives in the USA? The point would then be that it's inappropriate to try to impose (through edit-warring, no less) American standards of public discourse. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Well I am in America and can say that this level of prudery is not widely-held. Tarc (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Salvio closed the discussion but I haven't finished. Is anybody going to say or do something about Tarc's behaviour? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Not me. "Bullshit" is barely anything at all, and I see no reason why it should have been removed. I thought we were trying to de-escalate ANI, not re-degenerate it. Look at what this redaction, its dedaction, its re-redaction, have accomplished. What Pablo said. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
What administrator action are you seeking here? pablo 16:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Anthony, I thought Salvio's close was appropriate. This is going to generate more heat than light if it stays open. FWIW, I agree with the principle that we should civilise the language here; however we do not yet have consensus that (a) this should happen or (b) how. You were premature in starting to refactor in the way you did. Have patience, we will get there, but not by trying to force the pace. Now two admins (Salvio and I) have declined to act and tried to close this. You can of course reopen it but I suspect each time you do you'll get the same answer, as well as shortening peoples' patience. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 17:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Kim closed this conversation but Pablo had asked me a question. Pablo, I'd like Tarc to recognise that his comment was uncivil and inappropriate anywhere on this project, least of all at ANI. Presently he doesn't recognise that. See Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#Orderly_ANI. So, it would be appropriate for some kind of sanction to be put in place until he demonstrates that he is able to recognise uncivil behaviour and avoid it. Perhaps we could begin with a topic ban from this page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, good luck with that. Ho lawd. Thread's dead, babypablo 17:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Anthony, your solution (extending this discussion and continually reopening it) is worse than the problem. Tarc is not going to recognise anything of the sort, particularly if you keep badgering him. Nor is what he said sufficiently egregious for a block. A topic ban, I predict, will not fly either. The pair of you are now being disruptive here, in my opinion, by dragging this out - more particularly you, as you keep returning when you don't get the answer you hoped for. I will say no more on this thread, and will not close it again. However I invite any editor/admin who agrees with me to add their close to Salvio's and mine. Anyone who disagrees and thinks we should keep discussing this here is of course welcome to say so. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 17:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not badgering Tarc. I'm asking you to enforce Wikipedia policy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

In before the lock: the issue of removing single uncivil words like "bullshit" does not currently have community consensus. See Wikipedia talk:TALK#RFC Removal. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't redact a word. I redacted a sentence. An uncivil sentence. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Do you object to any other word besides "bullshit" in that sentence? What is uncivil about "that is the stuff I was talking about" for example? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you (pl) could leave this thread open for a bit to give others who are not online yet a chance to comment. It's not going to break the wiki, and I won't be adding anything but responses. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the usage of bullshit was unhelpful. But I also agree removing let alone edit warring over it was a bad idea simply because it's not severe enough to warrant such action. And I agree there's no much point continue to badger Tarc about it. So it would probably be best to just close this thread. Nil Einne (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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

unnecessary section in an RFC[edit]

closed previously by Kim Dent-Brown, reopened by me as user persisted after closing. I am reclosing as user in question has been blocked and concurrent review over on WP:AN.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 19:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No attacks worth the name were made. Section has been collapsed.Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)}}

The above was the original closing statement, but as Cla has reinserted his comments twice, I've unhatted the section.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 05:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we need an uninvolved admin to come in and close (or delete) a section in an RfC. One of the users has decided to make a list of all the users who have made personal attacks during this rfc. They then list about 10 editors who have generally disagreed with the editor (or another editor who hold similar views) and labelled every comment that disagrees with them as a personal attack. Start at the bottom of the list and tell me how many of those comments are violations of NPA? I see the whole section as one trying to intimidate or squelch people from having free dialog as any comment that is negative about the users/view in question might land them on the list of people who have made personal attacks.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 18:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking it over. I haven't participated at the RfC (not interested in it) and while I've had contact with various people involved in that discussion over the years I don't think anyone would consider me biased towards or against anyone. If I don't see anything worth warning about I'll collapse the section. -- Atama 18:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
My guess is that there might be a few that breach NPA, a lot of discussions have breaches, but not enough to warrant a whole section/discussion. But thanks for looking it over.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 19:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Atama, I started reading the diffs without posting here that I was on it. I agree with Balloonman here that the diffs provided either are not personal attacks at all, or are so microscopically resembling of a personal attack that the list is to be intended for a chilling effect rather than to address any real civility issue.--v/r - TP 19:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
One hot mess leads to another, doesn't it. I wonder how much harm comes from people saving up diffs and collecting them into lists of grievances. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Just ask Malleus...---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 19:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I don't have to. ;) Drmies (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks guys, I wanted to do it, but that would have been a clear COI.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 19:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Sigh... Going through these, at least one of these "attacks" were supposedly done on my talk page, in response to a comment I'd made, so I don't know if I'd be considered "uninvolved" after all. In my opinion though I agree that these aren't personal attacks, most of them were done in very public discussions and have been witnessed by multiple people (including a number of admins, they were at AN after all) and if they were actual attacks they would have been responded to already. TP if you're already reviewing them, please continue, you're not stepping on my toes in doing so, for sure. -- Atama 19:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Editor continues[edit]

I have notified Cla of the ANI report---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 05:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Ok, the person who started the initial thread has decided to summarize the hatted edits, again, I think it would be better if an uninvolved admin responded. The reposting of the summary is essentially a violation of the warning provided by TParis.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 00:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, this is getting ridiculous. Cla inserted a summary of "the personal attacks" after it was hatted above. TParis issued a Final Warning. Tryptofish chimes in that Cla should "drop this. It's only going to blow up, and do no good". To which Cla responds that "There is a method to my madness." He has since reinserted his edits claiming personal attacks.[11]. I encourage you to review the "personal" attacks to which Cla alleges and consider whether or not they are personal attacks or whether his insistance on claiming that they are is a personal attack?---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 05:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC) NOTE: My concern isn't so much about his list as personal attacks per se, but rather the effect his list has on open discussion. His lists of "attacks" are more disagreements and by calling different opinions "attacks" he squelches peoples desire to stand in opposition.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 05:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see some slightly more nuanced responses to this. While Cla's going about it the wrong way, were it not for A) my already unfortunate involvement in the RfC and 2) The generally poor quality of the overall discussion, several of these diffs are the types of comments that I'd give "don't make personal attack" warnings for in other situations. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 07:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
(non-admin comment) Try this. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, astute as always ASCIIn2Bme. The problem is that Cla has not been told that raising this isn't helpful, he's been told that these aren't attacks. That's a subjective issue. (Well, an even more subjective issue that "raising this isn't helpful.")
  • To my reading it's pretty close to a personal attack to accuse someone of harrasment without a clear, tenable reason.
  • It's totally an attack to accuse someone of homophobia (or any kind of xenophobia) with an very clear reason.
While I'm pleased not to have been watching this degenerate, someone *points bone at admin corps* should have been playing nice police way before Cla did his nanna. There's enough bile in this RFC to digest a horse.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 07:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm one of the editors on Cla's list. Naturally I don't have a problem discussing that particular edit of mine, and I believe it to be a justifiable edit. But currently it is mentioned in three places, none of which are appropriate venues for me to edit. It exists in an AN/I archive of a discussion which closed with no consensus to ban a certain editor. It is linked to in the discussion which TParis hatted, and I'm on Cla68's list. If it is OK for CLa68 to list me as someone who has made an edit that he considers questionable then I would like the opportunity to respond. But it would probably be more sensible to put the list within the hatnote - the community had a difference of opinion as to whether a certain incident merited a ban for a certain editor. I can't say I'm happy with the result, but I can accept that the result failed to agree a ban and that the incident is thereby closed. What I'm less sanguine about is being listed as attacking someone without having the opportunity to respond. ϢereSpielChequers 14:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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


Uncommunicative SPA blocked temporarily. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[moved from WT:BIO Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC) ]

Since IDK where to take this, let me make a request here to an Admin. User:AndrewFirestone777 has, to date, repeatedly added Diego Firestone to the Firestone dab page. He's done (literally) nothing else since June 2011. He's ignored repeated requests to stop, or create the actual page. IDK if this rises to vandalism, but advisorys or warnings appear futile. Can somebody do something? Thx. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC) (FYI: not watching this page, & not looking for an answer here if action gets taken.)

I've given them a two week attention-getting shot across the bows (hopefully long enough for them to notice, given their sporadic editing patterns). EyeSerenetalk 21:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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


Blocked, and 5 mins from complaint to action to closure...Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. (talk · contribs) is posting threats on a couple of pages, not that they seem truly serious, but thought I should just mention it... Calabe1992 22:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for a day. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Template:Music of Canada[edit]

Apparently a misunderstanding. 28bytes (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editor Roux created a !vote section with this language:

Since Miesianiacal is unable to provide a single source from the government claiming that GSTQ is official in any way, and it is agreed that the song has no more legal status in Canada than Happy Birthday (a song in far wider daily use than GSTQ, and an assertion supported by an actual source from the only organization on the planet able to comment definitively on legal and/or official status), GSTQ simply should not be included in this template

I observed his language was not neutral and changed it to:

Should the song "God Save the Queen" be excluded as the royal anthem of Canada in the navbox Template:Music of Canada?

Roux reverted my neutral language. I request admin intervention to restore neutral language, and a block of Roux if his disruption persists. – Lionel (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you go back and look at the history. If you were to do so--I know, I know, it's a lot to ask Wikipedians to be informed before they wade in and start whining--you would note that I had not one fucking thing to do with adding that RfC tag, and the section I created was made quite some time before that tag was placed on the page. But, jeez, that would mean you'd have had to actually pay attention to a) timestamps, b) history, c) my edit summary. → ROUX  04:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I did read the page. You still have time to make your !vote language neutral before the entire community arrives and begins commenting. – Lionel (talk) 04:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Apparently I was unclear. Let's try this again:
Do you understand yet? → ROUX  04:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

A) The content issue isn't going to get resolved here, that's what talk pages are for. 2) Roux is about to get a warning from me for civility, and possibly a few more will be handed out. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Appears to be a simple misunderstanding + nothing good will come out of reporting this matter on ANI. Closing. —Dark 04:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Death threat[edit]

Sock & open proxy blocked. EyeSerenetalk 09:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

See [12]. Similar edits to those made by recently-blocked Death to leftists and Arabs (talk · contribs). The Mark of the Beast (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably related to (talk · contribs). The Mark of the Beast (talk) 07:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Blocked by Bongwarrior. 28bytes (talk) 07:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Case of LTA. Just report these to AIV directly and quickly rollback with no questions asked, next time.Jasper Deng (talk) 07:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 Confirmed as being the Grawp/JDH dude. I've just blocked an open proxy - Alison 08:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

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

ARS Canvassing at AfD[edit]

Although there is strong disagreement here I do believe all sides are sincere and genuinely believe they are doing the best for Wikipedia. This is not a topic on which consensus is likely and none has been achieved here. I am closing this as no consensus for action. It is an appropriate topic to raise at AN/I and in general the tone of the discussion has been civil - it's good to see disagreements can be brought here and aired without unnecessary drama. I don't doubt that eyes will continue to be kept on the areas of concern, but I would suggest that some time now elapses before a similar complaint is raised, unless there are significant new developments. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Per the suggestion of an admin I am focusing the issue with the Article Rescue Squadron on the specific AfD that prompted my previous report. Here is the deletion discussion. User:Northamerica1000 voted keep within hours of the AfD being listed, but this vote was followed by two delete votes. After three days with no activity on the AfD, North listed it at the Article Rescue Squadron. Looking at the discussion it is clear what the result of this was. Within minutes of commenting at the ARS list User:Milowent and User:Drmies, the admin who closed the previous ANI thread, each comment on the AfD. Drmies makes a clear keep vote and Milo leaves a comment that is clearly pushing for a keep. At the same time these editors are commenting, User:Dream Focus from the ARS also makes a clear keep vote. The timing is pretty straightforward, that after nearly three days with two delete votes to his one keep North decided to list this for rescue seems more like he was trying to stave off a likely delete. What happens after listing is evident, a clear shifting of the discussion towards "keep" as ARS members notice the listing of the article at the Wikiproject. I don't really see how this could not be interpreted as a violation of WP:CANVASS by North and it reinforces my concerns about this list being an inevitable tool for such canvassing. If you look at the article itself there is no indication of actual improvements to the article. Unfortunately this is the same sort of activity we saw with the rescue tag, which North was also accused of regularly using to canvass inclusionists.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You aren't going to keep doing this every few days whenever someone disagrees with you on anything are you? The last ANI addressed this issue didn't it? [13] The arguments made by people, not the numbers that show up, are what are used to determine whether the article stays or goes. Do you believe the administrator Drmies is conspiring against you somehow? If he was truly up to something wouldn't he not participate in the AFD, but instead wait until it was time to close it and close it as keep? How many articles have you sent to AFD so far, and how many of them have ended in keep even when the ARS wasn't around? Dream Focus 18:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, someone could simply create an ADS (Article Demolition Squadron) and template AfD nominations they see as valid accordingly. In fact, they could use the ARS page in order to save time reviewing nominations for possible tagging. This would keep the playing field level without actually creating even more rules. Rklawton (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Upon closer examination, I see that WP:ADS is already taken. So I propose calling this new group "Article Rescue Squadron Exterminators" instead. Rklawton (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • [Sorry AQ, but I'm venting for a moment.] I may lose my temper here. The Devil's Advocate may not know me, but I am the mortal enemy of Dream Focus (BTW, DF, well put, above! thanks), and a longtime collaborator with Milowent. I am friends with User:MichaelQSchmidt, whose RfA I supported, and with whom I have turned many an all-too speedily nominated article into DYK. I am also, I guess, a deletionist of some sort--though Wikipedia Review lists me somewhere as an old ARSer. I participate occasionally on their pages, usually playing the devil's advocate (yes), most recently here. I got close to a hundred thousands edits on my belt. The Devil's Advocate seems to think that I'm some kind of pussy who purrs keep when poked by Northamerica1000 (I think our dislike of each other is well-established) or when some article appears on a list. Bullshit. (Anthony, I pre-dacted myself--I wanted to say worse.)

    That this list would be "canvassing" is total crap. I don't see why the ARS shouldn't have a right to list some (not all!) articles that they think are worth saving. Every WikiProject that's current and active does that, and Northamerica has every right to make this list and maintain--I can only hope that they do a decent job of selecting what's worth saving; some of you will recall they got slammed for tagging every other article with the Rescue tag, for which I took them to task as well. Devil's Advocate, I don't give a good g-----n for your concerns, and if you had been conscientious you would have looked around to see the other "votes" I engaged in following from that list, such as a "Merge" and delete (but I would leave that up to the closing admin) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Leopard (newspaper). Or you could use Snotty's tool to see how I vote in AfDs, or some other fancy tool that says how I close them. I find this accusation directed at me repugnant, and I find the whole issue, of this list on one of their own pages, to be moot, vindictive, and baseless. Grrr! I'm sorry if I lost my temper. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Not seeing consensus for close. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#archivetop_and_collapse_tags Nobody Ent 18:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The "ARS is canvassing" claim has been brought up repeatedly at AN/I recently. It's time to drop the stick. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Maybe if the problem repeatedly being reported was not continuing, there would be no need to keep reporting it. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
This is a user conduct dispute. It more than likely requires some form of mediation. However, ANI is not the place for that. There is no immediate administrative action needed. The Devil's Advocate needs to actually try to discuss the issues with the other involved parties before running off to ANI to file complaints. He keeps filing reports, and he keeps getting told that ANI is not the place to discuss the problem. He still has not discussed the problem with the other involved editors outside of ANI and he is still filing reports. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Canvassing is an ANI matter as it's disruptive, and admin action may well be appropriate. While one might view repeat filing as redundant, another might view it as providing evidence as to the scope and seriousness of the problem. Rklawton (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, canvassing can be dealt with. With that said, this editor has filed three reports in the past three weeks. A new report is opened right after the previous discussion closes. He has been told that there is no alleged canvassing, and that if he has a problem with a particular ARS member, he should bring the issue to their attention. He has not done this, he just keeps filing reports. This unwillingness to engage the editors in a talk page conversation, running straight to ANI, is disruptive and a waste of other editor's time. On the top of this noticeboard it states: "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." He is yet to follow that requirement. There is no immediate concern here that requires immediate administrative action. If he can't resolve the dispute through reasonable discussion, then he should try a dispute resolution process. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
As Rk notes, WP:CANVASS is very much a user conduct issue that is something for admin intervention, especially when it comes to repeat offenses by an editor. Your comment about discussion is not accurate. When I first brought ARS up on ANI I did try to discuss beforehand to no avail and clearly the discussion a few weeks ago at ANI and the TfD have not gotten across to North. An admin, Salvio, suggested that I file a new report here following the close of the last one that focused on the specific case regarding the AfD above and so I did. I must say that a member of the group that is being mentioned here should not be jumping in to close the discussion ten minutes after it opens, then reclose it four minutes after an editor re-opens it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
At some point NA1K is going to get himself blocked. I don't know when that day is, but his conduct wears even on his supporters as I've seen on WT:ARS. Just be patient. At some point, the ARS itself is going to open one of these threads about him.--v/r - TP 21:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
That's possible (that block)--but I thought (though I might be wrong, it is hard to tell) that this was a complaint about the very existence of the list. If The Devil's Advocate wants to accuse Na1000 of canvassing, they'll have to do better than point at the existence of the list. As it is, they seem to be arguing that because Na1000 posted something on the list and Milowent and I voted for something, therefore it's canvassing. But as far as that concerns me and my behavior, they'd have to prove that I am likely to vote keep on things I'm being canvassed for--and that I have a reputation of voting keep. Anyone with half a brain/memory knows that most of my votes on AfDs are directly opposed to An1000's. In fact, if Na1000 would contact me, directly or indirectly, about some AfD, they'd be less likely to be canvassing. You'll note the glaring absence of Na1000's messages on my talk page. I've been on theirs, to give them a piece of my mind about those rescue tags. Now doesn't that prove that the current complaint, in all its vagueness, simply holds no water? Drmies (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I see that you made two comments on January 11th in attempt to resolve the first issue, which ultimately failed. The issue did not require immediate administrator action, and should have been taken to WP:WQA. If that had failed, then it should have been taken to ANI or to an RFC/U. Instead you have filed thee different ANI reports on the Article Rescue Squadron, rather than a particular editor.

While the user is a member of the ARS, the problem is with a particular editor, and the report should be on that particular editor. As was discussed on the last ANI thread, the Article rescue squadron is not about canvassing keep !votes, the purpose of the project is to cleanup articles on potentially notable topics. There are quite a few WikiProject that use Article Alerts, which notifies the entire project of project related articles up at AfD. It allows editors interested in the topic to work on potentially notable articles up for deletion. Sometimes it results in the article being kept, sometimes it results in the article being deleted.

The concern you originally brought up on the 11th had nothing to do with ARS canvassing. The issue you brought up was over the fact that he notified all editors that contributed to the article's talk page which is technically canvassing. With that said, the problem was not the ARS, it was a particular editor. The other two incidents you reported did not even attempt to resolve the dispute first. The list you are so concerned about being a canvass board was taken to MfD. There was a strong consensus there to keep the board and that it did not constitute canvassing. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Look at that again, I said plainly that the rescue tag skewed the discussion and requested that he notify other outside editors to balance the discussion. That editor's response was to say there was nothing wrong with using the tag. Honestly, the fact North created the list within a day of the rescue tag getting deleted and is already using it like this is enough reason to question whether the list should remain. After looking over the MfD for the list I honestly don't see why it shouldn't be re-opened. Five of the twelve keep votes came from ARS members like yourself, one vote was nothing more than a keep vote with the comment "you've got to be kidding me", two votes from non-ARS members claimed there was no policy-based reason for deletion (even though in the TfD on the rescue tag the closing admin plainly said canvassing was such a reason), and two other voting editors do not appear to be impartial. That these votes were used to close the MfD within two hours is an oversight I think. Of course, it helps to demonstrate exactly how an AfD can be quickly dispensed with by a flood of editors and why "immediate" action should be taken.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, the fact North created the list within a day of the rescue tag getting deleted and is already using it like this is enough reason to question whether the list should remain. Apparently it's also a reason to assume bad faith, too. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Where do you get an assumption of bad faith exactly? North created the list and is using it essentially as a way to canvass keep votes. Saying an editor is doing something wrong is not assuming bad faith.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
@Drmies North's addition of it to the list clearly had the result of skewing the voting towards at least no consensus away from a delete vote. You can say that it would be up to the admin and that consensus is not about counting votes but the reality is that enough votes one way tend to be more convincing than a few good arguments in the other direction. Rather than waiting to see if the result of canvassing is as desired or if a closing admin sees through the canvassing, when it is not plainly noted is not something that should be expected of any editor.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, do you prefer that this perfectly legitimate list (your arguments about that MfD are silly) be written in invisible ink? Better yet, shall we keep the log secret so that those ARSers don't know what's up for AfD? Invisible AfD templates? Or maybe a topic ban for Northamerica? and me?

I don't know why you're talking about a tag, up above. The tag is gone. I didn't participate in the AfD; I don't think it was so canvassy, but I do think that Na1000 used it haphazardly, inappropriately, and uselessly. But the tag is gone. So now the poor ARSers have nothing but a list, and you want that taken away? Drop the stick, The Devil's Advocate: this is getting tedious. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

  • What a misguided ANI to bring. DA's beef has to do with the ARS flagging an article for further examination that has in turn improved the quality of the AfD discussion, instead of leaving it to the random fate that awaits many borderline articles depending on which 3-5 editors show up to comment. This article, in fact, is likely to be deleted and at least it will be deleted after a fair hearing. DA claims: "Milo leaves a comment (at the AFD) that is clearly pushing for a keep." Really? If I wanted to keep the article I would have !voted keep. My comment, in fact, pointed out that some of the delete votes were weak on their rationale and incorrect about the amount of local/regional coverage of the restaurant in the press. And my transparent comment at ARS pointed out that the ability to rescue the article was questionable. I stated "As notable as Mzoli's? There is not a lot of consistency at AFD on single-location restaurants, as best I can recall, its often just a WP:GNG debate unless its Michelin or similarly rated (see my !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L'Auberge (restaurant) for Michelin notability). The number of local stories on it [14] does show local popularity." If this is an incident of horror to be condemned, please shackle me, dear comrade editors. I ask DA to assume a little more good faith; he is free to comment in any AfD regarding any votes he think were "canvassed," but I think his real fear is that his nominations might sometimes be proven hasty, otherwise what does one have to fear from examination?--Milowenthasspoken 02:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, note that there is significant precedent for Wikiprojects to maintain Cleanup lists. See This search for a search list of cleanup listings that numerous WikiProjects maintain. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Now that ARS follows the same conventions as other porjects (i.e. off the article page, manual list, notification of listing in the Afd) all my concerns have mostly vanished. I take into account the effect that this listings have when closing an AfD, and beleive that this would be common practice in any closer who is not simply counting noses. Propose this thread be closed. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't see any problem with ARS (including with this specific complaint) now that their obnoxious tag is gone. The solution here is for everyone who hates ARS to simply watchlist the list themselves. If you think they are crusading to save a bunch of crappy articles, just put your own opinions on the same AFDs (within reason, of course). Someguy1221 (talk) 04:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment - For shit's sakes, this is the stupidest ANI whine in recent memory. AfD is not a vote. 500 vapid "votes" for keep SHOULD be defeated by one intelligent argument for deletion if the closing administrator is doing their job. And, by the same token, 15 people braying "delete" should lose a debate with a well constructed defense. AfD is not a VOTE, it is a TRIAL. Five attorneys do not trump one if their case is weak and the judge is following the law. Why does it matter if ANYONE "canvases"? It shouldn't. The facts of a situation are the facts. Sources are sources. Rationality would deem some things necessary and others inappropriate. Have a little faith in the system, please. ARS has been kneecapped by a very bad decision to eliminate their Rescue template lately. It will take some time for them to reestablish themselves on a new basis. Give them a break. Carrite (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Time to close. There is nothing here that requires administrative action. I suggest that ARS be set up with a delsort page just as do other projects. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

With a heavy sigh, I'm "unclosing" this. (See my talk page.) I'd also stress that putting a little box around a discussin is an edit that, like almost all others, isn't owned. So if you think someone has closed wrongly, please be bold and unclose, with a little note that says why. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Assuming even that the AfD closes with a keep, someone who disagrees would still have two good ways of proceeding, the easiest of which is to nominate it again in 6 months or so, and the more complicated alternative is to use deletion review. Since the AfD was at the time of posting and still is ongoing, an even better way is to continue to discuss it there--and indeed, DA, you actually and properly made a further comment in the discussion as well as your nomination before coming here. Given your comment has now been followed by 6 straight delete opinions, 2 before you came here and 4 afterwards, it is hard to see why you would be complaining. When an AfD discussion goes the way I think it ought to go, I don't usually complain about it. Even if I don't like what someone said there, if I get done what I want to get done it usually satisfies me. DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    • This discussion, despite the good faith of all involved, seems to me to be a whole lot of nothing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm thoroughly confused as to what valid concern there could be. WP:CANVASS says that notifications are appropriate if they're "Limited posting AND Neutral AND Nonpartisan AND Open". Posting to one page is pretty limited. The [15] shows the notification was phrased in neutral terms discussing reliability of sources and asking for more reliable sources. I suppose you might consider it partisan if you thought that membership of ARS is equivalent to asserting that you believe every article should be kept, but that'd be like believing that membership of Wikiproject Glub is equivalent to asserting that you believe every article about Glub varieties should be kept. Membership of ARS only means believing that some articles should be improved so that everyone will want to keep them (hence asking for more reliable sources). And finally, obviously it was posted openly (though repeatedly bringing up spurious complaints about canvassing seems like a brilliant plan for driving ARS underground). Being an ARS member myself (when I feel the urge to research-and-fix, it's quicker browsing a list of articles someone already thinks are worth saving than the list of articles someone thinks are worth deleting) no doubt I'm biased, but really, what exactly is the problem with someone asking a bunch of people who like to research-and-fix, "Here's this article that can be fixed by adding reliable sources, can someone do that?" --Zeborah (talk) 06:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Were it only about fixing articles or establishing their notability that would be one thing. From what I can tell this is the only Wikiproject devoted to reaching a specific outcome in an ongoing deletion discussion. The whole theme of the group suggests it is an audience that is likely to be more favorable to inclusion than others. Honestly, who doesn't want to "rescue" stuff? That you are rescuing "knowledge" makes it even more compelling. When a group has as its set purpose preventing the deletion of articles it covers it is hard to see why anyone would think that is the same as a group of film aficionados directing people to AfDs that concern movies. Really that is directing a group of people who are well-versed in the subject on Wikipedia to judge whether something fits the relevant notability criteria. The specific problem here is, as I noted above, North lists this apparently several days after voting keep when the discussion was favoring delete and the result was that several editors stepped in to vote keep. At the same time North made no noteworthy contributions to the article, nor did any other editors popping into the AfD. So it wasn't a case of "research-and-fix" at all.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Can you comment on the fact that 2 of the first 3 items in the AR List have drawn ARS responses amounting to "they're not notable" -- including one such response from NorthAmerica1000? I'm not counting my own Delete vote (and delete-leaning comment at the List) regarding Sal's Pizza (which is, as an aside, a complete joke for an article subject). As I say below, if this is a keeps-only canvassing machine, it's obviously not working. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Some people are terrible at making insults, it doesn't change that they are insults. I think there is an obvious question of intent and ultimate effect.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not following. Is this ANI intended to be about NA1K's conduct or a(nothernothernothernother) review of ARS practices in general and the List in particular? If the former, I have no comment -- I'm unfamiliar with controversial behavior on NA1K's part. If the latter, I have to suggest that you reconsider that POV, given that Lists such as this are firmly grounded in precedent and policy, and given that there are a number of articles listed on that List where ARS members have chimed in to basically say that the subject looks hopelessly non-notable and that there's nothing to be done. If it's a keep vote canvassing tool, it's certainly a very weird and ineffective one. I have absolutely no idea if there is an issue specific to NA1K regarding canvassing, but the canvassing argument with regard to the ARS and the Rescue List has gotten so weak as to border on give-me-a-fucking-break territory. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
It is hard to distinguish the two honestly, especially when members of the group tend to circle the wagons every time this sort of issue gets brought up. What makes it even harder to distinguish the two is the fact that North created the list in the first place. Here I think you should look at the specific case. Does it not seem clear that discussion was trending towards delete at the time of its listing? Does it not seem clear that the effect of the listing was a marked increased in editors pushing for the article to be kept? Given the listing was at a group specifically about moving deletion discussions towards keep does it not seem clear that this effect was the result of appealing to a skewed sample of editors?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
This I understand, and that is a reasonable reply. I have certainly noticed the same circling-of-wagons behavior in the past, although I suggest you consider what effect your continued crusade is going to have on the amount of wagons in the circle. Nonetheless, with specific regard to Sal's apparently fantastic Pizza (good pizza in Dallas; pish), I see the ARS listing drawing a keep vote from Dream Focus (shocker!), who basically has yet to meet non-notable subject he didn't want to keep. I also see a qualified Keep vote from Drmies. I also see a Delete vote from ARS member Ginsengbomb, and I see Drmies basically reversing himself afterwards, followed by a string of delete votes. This well-oiled keep canvass machine managed 1 Keep, 1 semi-reversed Weak Keep, and 1 Delete. So, no, in this specific case, I don't see something hideous and sinister happening. The group is very clearly not specifically about "moving deletion discussions towards keep." It is about moving deletion discussions towards keep when there's a valid reason for doing so. That's a significant distinction. And, again, if you're going to focus this on Sal's Pizza, focus it on Sal's Pizza, because your argument taken to the List and to the ARS as a whole looks extremely weak when you consider that Keep votes don't come flooding in unless there are ARS members who actually think the article should be kept. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Note - Just so it isn't missed by anyone, please note that the ARS Rescue list was nominated for deletion on 7 February 2012, and the result of the discussion was keep per WP:SNOW. Furthermore, the nominator later commented regarding their nomination on the Rescue list talk page located here. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    I don't find any "snow" decisions made 2 hours after something is posted very compelling.--Crossmr (talk) 10:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • [16] I've read through all of the above. The only thing I see is continual waving of the stick. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • comment the key difference I see between an ARS notification list and a project notification list is that ARS has a specific agenda in regards to AfDs. While we expect the projects themselves to be interested in those topics and possibly capable of giving more expert opinions on the subjects or finding sources if necessary, we don't necessarily expect them to argue for keep on every single article. On the other hand, we do expect that of ARS, and just as if there were a Wikiproject:Deletionists group, it would be inappropriate for them to create a similar kind of notification system. One of the ideas behind canvas is to avoid notifying people specifically because you know how they'll !vote. They are a partisan group. This is votestacking per the table on WP:CANVAS--Crossmr (talk) 10:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) and comment:
    • The {{Rescue}} template was deleted because, from my reading of the discussion, there was a consensus it was used indiscriminately; the template was viewed as disruptive, as it was used all over the place and regardless of the merits of its application.
    • Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list was SNOW kept. It's one list, in the one place, and closely watched. It was not in any way of the magnitude of the disruption to the project that {{Rescue}} was argued to be. And as it stands, it a useful reference for both the Article Rescue Squadron and those of a more deletionist tendency.
  • In legalese, "in the matter of interlocutory application The Devil's Advocate v Article Rescue Squadron and Anors [WP:AN/I 794] I agree with my brother Bushranger J. that this serves only to re-agitate matters already decided in other tribunals, and must be dismissed."
  • In plain terms: The TfD is over. the MfD is over. Nothing more to do or see here. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

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


User warned for final time that talk pages must be used to discuss disputed edits. Short block will follow if user refuses to do so again. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Twomorerun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · bloc