Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive743

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

Noticeboard archives


Persistent harassment[edit]

Resolved: IP reblocked for spamming. Toddst1 (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please have words with User: He or she has been spamming my Talk page with "warnings" after I reverted his or her link spam, edits for which he or she has been previously warned and blocked by other editors. I removed his or her edits several times but he or she persists in harassing me with them. I would warn him or her myself but that would almost certainly exacerbate the situation instead of calming it. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I feel that user ElKevbo has inappropriately targeted university sites (to an extreme), I posted a warning message on his TALK site because I wasn't sure of another way to communicate with him/her. Posting a message to reconsider his behavior is not harassment. Please take a look at what I posted on his TALK site and you will see. If someone can please get a message to ElKevbo to stop his practices or at least reconsider his actions that would be wonderful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Let's see if I have this straight, 24.130. You were blocked for a month for adding these spam links to various articles, after you were repeatedly warned not to do so. Pretty much as soon as the block expired, you went right back to adding them. ElKevbo hasn't "inappropriately targeted university sites;" he's appropriately targeted your spam, and sending him a warning template for doing so does you no good. I strongly suggest you read WP:EL and comply with its provisions - at least once you return from your next block. Ravenswing 08:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[edit] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) needs to have his talk page access revoked. Klilidiplomus+Talk 12:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Block was already done - I have hidden the offensive material. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Night Ranger blocked[edit]

So here's the background. I blocked Kumioko for a week (archived thread here) for abusing multiple accounts. Night Ranger (talk · contribs) decided to put sock tags on all Kumioko's accounts and related IPs. Some of these tags were wrong (claiming incorrectly that there were checkuser blocks) but all of them were unhelpful, IMO. Floquenbeam removed the tags, but Night Ranger edit warred to restore them. I left Night Ranger a note asking that he stop doing that, and he responded by putting a "retired" banner with "FUCK WIKIPEDIA" on his talk page, and bunch of "BLOCK ME"s on his user page.

OK, fine, just someone getting frustrated.

So then he returns from "retirement" to put an image of a penis on his userpage. I leave him another note telling him I understand he's frustrated, but to please not do that.

He responds by putting another penis image on his userpage (animated, this time) and announcing plans to remove all the "banned" templates from all banned editors' userpages since apparently they're "unhelpful", and indeed starts doing this. I happen to think that some of those banned templates probably are unhelpful, but Night Ranger obviously disagrees and was clearly disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.

I understand he was frustrated about the G10s (and he was right to be, sockpuppet categories are not attack pages, especially in the case of sockpuppet categories for editors who were actually sockpuppeting) but this disruption is absolutely not the way to deal with that frustration, and since he's ignored repeated requests from me and other admins to please just behave maturely about this, I believe a block (1 week in this case) is quite reasonable under the circumstances. 28bytes (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

...and he's just sockpuppetted to evade the block. I've indef-blocked the sock but I'll leave Night Ranger's at a week in hopes that he'll stop digging. 28bytes (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Isn't there a discussion going on at AN...or maybe Village Pump? Anyways, a discussion about not using the banned user templates or, if they are used, not to delete the rest of the userpages/user talk pages as well? I seem to remember this happening, but I didn't stick around to see what the outcome was. SilverserenC 07:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there are a couple of related discussions at WT:BAN. 28bytes (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Colonel Warden[edit]

CW unblocked by consensus, Kww agrees not to do this again, CW warned for potentially misleading edit summaries. Not a lot else to see here, and no admin action seems indicated --John (talk) 17:25, 18 March 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.

I've blocked Colonel Warden for his return to lying via edit summaries: notably a claim to have added sources as a justification for removing a prod when, in fact, neither that edit to the talk page nor the corresponding article edit had done anything of the sort. Once, I could overlook. I've warned him about it numerous times, and it was a major topic in WP:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden. There's no good faith explanation: he lies in edit summaries. There's no room in Wikipedia for this.—Kww(talk) 02:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

For the record, his actions went against two of the conclusions by an independent closer of that RFC:
  • "In general, the removal of prods and other tags in good faith is not a problem, but Colonel Warden is reminded that often those tags exist as a guide to help other editors to clean up articles, and good faith effort should be made to either resolve the issues noted in the tags, or if they cannot be found, to remove the tags only if they truly do not belong. If an issue cannot be resolved, it is OK to leave a tag in an article for another editor to deal with", as his removal of the prod was not accompanied by any effort to resolve this issue, only an effort to mislead other editors about such an effort
  • "The use of edit summaries in an accurate manner is imperative, and where needed talk pages should be used to further explain complex actions or to engage in discussion where one's actions are contested.", as his edit summary was blatantly false.—Kww(talk) 02:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Two not necessarily related statements: I wish you'd proposed this here, for someone else to consider a block. The combination of the talk page with the summary seems to prove your point for this case. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • For the benefit of non-admins, the Colonel's edit summary was "+ links to sources &c." He did put a {{notice|{{find}}}} template at the top of the talk page in that edit, which provides a set of links to find sources rather than actual links to an actual sources. 28bytes (talk) 02:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Is that deceptive? isn't the edit summary saying he's adding the notice that gives you the links to sources and citations? Not saying Warden isn't ever confusing in such stuff, but the act of de-prodding doesn't require sources, just a good faith belief that deletion would not be uncontroversial, unless this is some unusual case I can't see.--Milowenthasspoken 02:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I can't see the edit, but perhaps this is similar to these edits to List of Banyan trees in India (- prod + image &c.) and its talk page (+ links to sources &c.). Kanguole 02:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the Banyan trees edit was essentially the same as the one Kww blocked him for. 28bytes (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
What does "&c." mean in that edit summary, otherwise its accurate unless he's saying he added sources.--Milowenthasspoken 03:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
"etc." It's the Colonel Warden code for "more material that he didn't deem worth summarizing". Yes, a direct parallel: a false claim to have provided sources, accompanying a removal of a prod for which he actually provided no justification aside from his personal belief that the "article has merit". The deprod alone could be argued to be in good faith, but the false edit summary belies that: he did not add links to sources, Milowent.—Kww(talk) 03:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Caveat: I am very much not a fan of Colonel Warden; I think he's among the top three or four ARS jockeys who've given that outfit a bad name for inclusionism at all costs, between gaming the system, prod removal for the sake of removing prods, and changing their tune from XfD to XfD. That being said, I wouldn't draw any conclusion from that RfC. Plainly there was no consensus reaching even the level of vague admonition - and I'm disturbed by the implication that "acting in good faith" = "he means well" - and you really can't say that there were terms of the RfC to breach. Ravenswing 04:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • My magic 8 ball tells me that this block will be overturned within 24 hours with a massive chunk of time-wasting drama thrown into the pot as well. Controversial blocks should really be discussed before being implemented to avoid the block/unblock cycle and in any event Warden's recent poor behavior at the ARS RFC throwing labels around as marks of Cain with a real battleground mentality surely should have been included in any consideration of a block (see AN). Spartaz Humbug! 05:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Pending desysop of Kww I will note, for the record, that the edit summary says "+ links to sources &c.", rather than "+ links and sources &c.", and that the edit by Colonel Warden did, in fact, include links to potential sources--if any existed--via the {{notice|{{find}}}}. While the links for "secrets of a small town" did result in a large number of false positives, I've personally verified that by adding information relevant to the show (I used '"Secrets of a small town" ABC', adding the network name in the Google News archive link) does result in a number of paywalled RS'es that directly refer to the content of the now-deleted article. The assumption of bad faith by an admin of an editor with whom he has previously been in dispute is unconscionable: You are not just wrong, Kww, but you are egregiously wrong in a manner that I believe to be incompatible with your continuing to hold administrator privileges on Wikipedia. To be sure, I've blocked Colonel Warden for inappropriate use of edit summaries in the past, but this is not one of them. I expect that, upon reading this, you will unblock Colonel Warden with a sufficiently apologetic edit summary, and resign the tools yourself within 24 hours. If that doesn't happen, I will begin seeking your desysop'ing for this conduct. Jclemens (talk) 07:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
    For the record, what appeared on the talk page of the de-prodded (and subsequently deleted) article based on {{notice|{{find}}}} was equivalent to:

    {{notice|{{find|Secrets of a small town}}}}

    Jclemens (talk) 07:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

    As far as I can tell, if someone says they added a "link to X", I would expect to see a link that when clicked will take me to X. Not a link that will take me to some search results page that may or may not actually have another link that, when clicked, will finally take me to X. And that "manually added ABC" part is worse: by this logic, it's not misleading to call a plain [1] link a "link to sources" - all you need to do is manually add the thing to search for. T. Canens (talk) 07:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
    There was indeed a link added, via the find template, that does take one to sources. Page 2 of the Google News archive search does indeed find three relevant RS'es even without the ABC qualifier, which would have taken far more customizable code to include--excessive for a deprod edit, in my opinion. But that is pretty much missing the point: Kww has been involved in a number of disputes relating to Colonel Warden in the past, such that I would have expected he'd let someone else do the block per INVOLVED, and when shining a bit of light on the edits and edit summaries shows, at worst, an edit summary which can be misinterpreted, it becomes obvious why such discretion is the best idea. Remember, this is not an edit to the article saying he added sources or links, this is an edit to the talk page after he'd deprodded an article, which included links for other editors to find links to sources, something that isn't required at all in the WP:PROD process. Jclemens (talk) 07:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
    Not taking a position on the block, but an editor with the experience of Colonel Warden surely knows that a link to a search query is not the same as a link to a source, and he really ought to stop labelling one as the other. Kanguole 10:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
    Yeah, I agree with this. Linking to Google is not the same thing as providing sources, which is what CW's edit summaries claimed. Reyk YO! 10:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
    I think, bearing in mind that (apparently) CW has had issues with similar before, a reminder to be extremely careful about not leaving ambiguously-worded and possibly-misleading edit summaries would be in order. Even if posting an edit summary which could be read as meaning "sources added" is entirely unintentional, it's something to be avoided, to remove any shadow of doubt. Pesky (talk) 10:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
    I don't disagree at all that a less ambiguous edit summary is appropriate ant optimal. I'm familiar with the "misleading edit summaries" Colonel Warden has previously been reprimanded for, and this isn't like those. He's almost in a a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation: by being more communicative on his PROD removals, he's opened up new ways in which his edit summaries could be misunderstood. If he'd ignored the RFC/U advice and simply removed PRODs without providing rationales, as is allowable by the process, he wouldn't have been subject to this criticism. I may be biased by my C programming background, though: a pointer to a pointer is still, itself, a pointer, so I have no problem with understanding how Colonel Warden might have chosen to phrase things as he did. At any rate, the proper way to clarify such edit summaries would be via the talk page, I'd expect. Jclemens (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
    Sorry, the edit summary was not ambiguous. The meaning of "+ links to sources" is clear, and it's clearly different from "added links to queries that may (or may not) yield sources". Colonel Warden surely knows that. (Don't you?) Kanguole 00:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
    As a C programmer myself, I can tell you that that comparison is ludicrous. You ought to know that "int **" and "int *" are different types. A link to google is not a link to a source, whereas CW claimed to have linked to sources. I'm not the type of person who deliberately lets people like the Colonel pull the wool over my eyes with that kind of slippery wikilawyering. Reyk YO! 01:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Eh, you're trying to assume what his edit summary meant when, as Jclemens says above, he likely meant adding the Find template. Therefore, the edit summary wasn't deceptive, kinda overturning the whole point of the block in the first place. Are we done here? I don't even consider this incident something of merit. At the very least, you need something on the level of moving tags to the bottom of the page. At least. SilverserenC 08:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I didn't realize the supposed deceptive edit summary was to the talk page and not to the article proper. Seriously, Kww? You're already involved in the first place, considering past history with Warden, and you use this pretty much useless "incident" to block? I can fully understand why Jclemens is calling for a de-sysop. SilverserenC 08:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm saddened that, as usual, Colonel Warden has defenders. He's done this kind of thing time and time again, using deceptive edit summaries and removals of tags without doing anything to correct the underlying problem. Was this single edit blockable? Of course not. Was this edit a continuation of the pattern of deceptiveness and bad faith editing demonstrated in WP:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden? Certainly. My involvement with Colonel Warden has to deal solely with his misbehaviour. Has it been ongoing? Certainly. Has it been lengthy? Certainly, but that is because he works and edits to disrupt the deletion process, and, so long as he has other admins covering for him, this will never stop. His RFC came to a standstill because of apologists that tried to interpret falsehoods as misunderstandings. They interpreted blatant misrepresentation of source contents as innocent mistakes. If an editor has a five year long pattern of being a poor misunderstood soul that can't seem to properly express the reason why his edits don't line up with what the summaries claim they are, it's beyond simple mistake.

As for bringing it to ANI first, all that would have happened is that Jclemens would have protected him in advance instead of later, and the heat of the ANI thread would be no different. Desysop me for blocking an intentionally deceitful editor? I hope it will be hard to find an editor that will even unblock an intentionally deceitful editor.—Kww(talk) 10:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, Jclemens, your comment above "I've personally verified that by adding information relevant to the show (I used '"Secrets of a small town" ABC', adding the network name in the Google News archive link) does result in a number of paywalled RS'es " is a complete red herring. That's not what Colonel Warden did. He added a bog-standard template and a canned statement that said not to put a prod back on the article because he believed the article to "have merit".—Kww(talk) 11:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
So you're criticizing him because he gave a rationale (not required by PROD), and added an alert box with standard resources for finding sources (again, not required by PROD). Hmm, interestingly enough, being more communicative about his de-prod reasons seems something entirely in line with the closer's suggestions at the RFC which you cite as him having violated. Also, neither revised criticism is commensurate with his edit summary being a premeditated falsification designed to deceive proponents of article deletion. At the time the edit with the disputed summary was made to the talk page the article in question was not facing any deletion process: As you can see by reviewing his contributions for 8 March, he first undid the PROD, then responded pretty briefly to TPH's query about it, added the rationale and disputed edit summary, and promptly afterwards replied to TPH's follow-up. If anything, this demonstrates Colonel Warden's being responsive to queries about his de-prodding, although his second response was far more helpful than his first. Jclemens (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and re: the assertion that I would have shown up to defend Colonel Warden had he been discussed here before a block, that is ironically false. I don't watch ANI, but I do have Colonel Warden's talk page watchlisted, and have had it listed since I first blocked him ~18 months ago. Had you brought it up here first, I would not have noticed immediately upon returning to my watchlist, and may never have done so. Jclemens (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm unavailable until about 2PM EST. I'll return to this thread at that time.—Kww(talk) 12:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose block. It is not necessary to provide sources when removing a PROD - anyone can contest a PROD at any time without having to make any improvements to the article at all, and the next step is to take it to AfD if you still think it should be deleted. As for the edit summary being a "lie", I think it's sufficiently ambiguous to warrant some good faith. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
    Oh, and why are we blocking someone now for something that happened 8 days ago? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose block - per Boing! said Zebedee. I also feel that I must add that in my experience Colonel Warden is an editor who does a great deal of interesting, high quality editing across a wide array of topics, and is also one of the most decent and helpful editors in the project.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)]
  • Oppose - as per Boing! said Zebedee's reasoning. Kww, that action was unacceptable. Didn't you know that there is something known as a talk page of a user to discuss their edits and what they can use to correct it in the future? Blocking him is just gonna him a hard time and might make him leave the project. As for a summary being a lie, meh, If I was you, i'd assume some good faith and if it were a long-term pattern, I would have proceeded with warnings. And Kww don't assume he was doing the wrong things. Abhijay What did I do this time? 14:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Comment - Some of the discussion above seems to be going above and beyond on the assumption of good faith, making the claim that Colonel Warden was not claiming to have added sources to the talk page when he merely added a search link. In my run-in on this issue, Colonel claimed, "This and the other topics are best discussed on their talk pages so that other editors may participate. I have provided some links to sources there." Yes, technically the wording does not directly claim to have added sources, but the implication was clear enough that I asked about it (and noted several cases where there wasn't even the search link: "The articles are not being discussed and you have not provided sources (you provided search links Talk:Natural_cleaning_product, the last discussion by other editors there was 3 years ago). There is no discussion whatsoever (and no sources from you) at Talk:Detection. At Talk:Dol Amroth again, no sources from you and no discussion in over 2 years. Talk:Locating has no sources from you and no discussion whatsoever. Again, you didn't add sources at Talk:Lorentz invariance in loop quantum gravity and the last discussion is 6 years ago. Talk:Mildenhall Cricket Club does not exist, so it certainly has no sources from you or discussion by others." Colonel ignored the issue (as well as several attempts to discuss non-admin closures of AfDs on shaky "Speedy Keep" claims), removing the topics with the comment, "(wipe rant &c.)".
On the other side of the issue, we have a developing assumption of bad faith, directed at Kww. Yeah, there is reasonable room for discussion on blocking before discussing the issue here. However, Kww brought the issue here for discussion immediately after the block -- there was no attempt whatsoever to avoid discussing the issue. Yeah, I was slightly surprised to see the block come down seemingly out of no immediate cause (though I can certainly see cause for a "Wake up!" block on Colonel). So I can see someone hitting Kww with a wet minnow. Desysoping, however, is as out of scale as taking Colonel out behind the barn and putting him down with a rifle.
IMO (FWIW), Colonel needs something larger than a wet trout: the inclusionist stance is what it is, the failure to explain why an article should be kept (unexplained removal of prods, wikilawyer-ism "Speedy Keep" arguments, &c.) are annoying. Attempts to claim that ze was somehow being "helpful" with the search links strike me as inconsistent with the rest of Colonel's actions. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
You don't need to add sources (or make any improvements at all) to contest and remove a PROD, so all this talk of "he didn't add sources" is irrelevant. That he added a search link is a bonus - he had no obligation to do that whatsoever. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
But since he said that he added links to sources (in this edit summary), it is reasonable to expect that he actually did so. Jakew (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
It would probably be more precise to say that added "links to find sources", or "links to source searches", but he did provide resources to source the article on the talk page after his de-prod, something that is not required. Jclemens (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Let's see if I've got this right, Jakew. CW de-PRODed an article, which he was perfectly entitled to do without making any changes to the article itself or having to help look for sources in any way, and he then added a search link to *the Talk page* that would actually help people looking for sources (which is more helpful than is mandated) - yet because the accompanying edit summary was perhaps ambiguous, you think think he deserved an indefinite block? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I haven't commented on the legitimacy of the block itself; I'm just pointing out why it's relevant that he didn't add sources. Jakew (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
and he worded his edit summary in such a way as to make it look like he provided information which he didn't exactly provide. That was what the block was for. If I start removing prods from articles with edit summaries like "de-prod, I'm wearing blue pants today!" or "de-prod, this article has 100 sources!" when there are none or very few, perhaps irrelevant ones, I will expect to be blocked for misleading edit summaries or perhaps pointy editing. He added a template which linked to searches which may provide sources. There is no evidence that he followed any of those links (if he did, why didn't he list the good sources themselves?) before removing the prod. As such his reason for removing the prod was spurious and his edit summary misleading at best.--Crossmr (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) What I would like to know is this. The deprod happened on the 8th. Since then it spent a week at AFD where I closed it as "delete" with no opposition on the 16th. A day later CW is blocked for an action he took on the 8th in an already deleted article. Kww, what I want to know is this, exactly how was this bought to your attention and what ongoing disruption was this block meant to prevent? If this sort of thing is still happening couldn't you have found an example more recent in an article that still exists? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment  This post documents that the block occurred after the talk page was deleted:
  • 2012-03-16T00:21:01 Ron Ritzman (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Secrets of a Small Town (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secrets of a Small Town)
  • 2012-03-17T02:11:31 Kww (talk | contribs) blocked Colonel Warden (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Return to deceptive edit summaries: quite apparent this editor will never edit in good faith)
Unscintillating (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. On request by CW I've userfied the article in question. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Overturn and block KWW for blatant and outrageous disruption. What arb com may want to do is their lookout; we should do what we can. What Kww should have done in this situation if he thought a block necessary was propose it here, and, if the consensus supported it, have someone else impose it. If there ever was an involved editor on subjects relevant to deletion and AfD, it's Kww, and the long lasting disagreements cannot have been under the impression he was a neutral party. Col. Warden's arguments are sometimes a little far-fetched, but this is best dealt with by refuting them--as was done in the AfD that gave rise to this. If someone thinks they are outrageous enough to block, it can't be someone who inevitably opposes him. And I would regard this as an exceptionally bad block no matter who did it. Blocking over what is said at AfD is best reserved for true disruption--there is normally a great liberty of speech here. In this particular case, the quality of the block is particularly debatable. It is not usually good practice to link to the results of a search engine, but it is occasionally necessary when the material cannot be cited otherwise. Certainly in AfD we often cite the results of a search engine to show there are multiple references available , or to show that there are no good references available. In the heat of a time-limited debate, to add such a link to the article in question is not unreasonable--one would convert it later--and to say one has added a link in these circumstances is not an untruth. And Col. w. indicated it was a link to sources, which actually makes everything totally proper If we start blocking far untruths at AfD , we would equally blocks those people who say falsely there are no Reliable sources, or that something isn't notable if the community decides otherwise. I will not overturn the block myself, because I'm as involved with Kww as he is with Col. W. However, if Kww seriously thinks he was not too closely involved to block the Col, then I am not too closely involved to block him. The situation is exactly parallel. There is only one thing that could have saved the situation for Kww, which is to unblock immediately and never do anything of the sort again--anyone can do something rashly. I'd say unblock and apologize, except that there's no point in forced apologies. But that Kww actually has the lack of judgment to defend his action shows that more is needed. DGG ( talk ) 16:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, neither kww or CW participated in the AFD in question which I closed as a unanimous "delete" 2 days ago. What he did was "drop out of the sky" and block him yesterday for something that happened before the article was nominated for deletion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose block of Warden. If it was anyone else, would Kww be acting that way? I think he does have it in for certain people and should be desysop. Dream Focus 15:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Overturn or shorten block While it is certainly unhelpful to leave unclear edit summaries when removing prods, an indefinite block seems like overkill, IMHO. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose block of the Colonel. I've had run-ins with the Colonel before, as both Kevin and the Colonel know, and in past debates I've usually come down on the side of Kevin. I must not have been paying attention on two occasions: the Colonel's RfC, where I would have voted for action against the Colonel, and Kevin's RfA, where I would have voted to support. For the first reason, I wouldn't dream of blocking the Colonel (unless something weird was going on, like his spouting racist comments or draping penises over people's user pages--apparently it's a happening thing), and for the second reason I find myself in a bind here: I think this was not a good block to have been performed by him. I like to claim, regularly, that this "involved" thing is overblown, but in this case I think it is not. I won't support a desysoping, but this was a bad block. Sorry Kevin. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


  • Your scrutiny is invited. Spartaz, you were correct, at least partly--the dramah is already here. I have never overturned someone else's block before, but I will now, for two reasons:
  1. In my opinion, User:Kww is way too involved with the Colonel to have made this block. An indefinite block of a longtime (albeit controversial) editor for a controversial reason (not outright vandalism, etc) must be done with at least some sort of consensus.
  2. Kww's rationale, "quite apparent this editor will never edit in good faith", is not correct: such is not apparent to me at all.
I made the decision to unblock after reading over all the comments here, and while it's a bit early still, there is a clear consensus that this was not a good block. I don't want to move towards taking the bit from Kww: I think the block was a mistake, not a hanging offense. But that's just me. Kevin, I'm sorry to go against you, but I know that at least I can't be accused of having a long history of supporting the Colonel. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Drmies, I think you've done the right thing here. I'm surprised that Kww expected that his actions here would have been perceived as uninvolved. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Paul Erik, unblocking was the appropriate action here. Kww, I must say, I came to this discussion without any strong opinion of the Colonel either way, and your WP:BATTLEFIELD response to those of us commenting ("I'm saddened that, as usual, Colonel Warden has defenders") is extremely disappointing. Your further comments in that post give the distinct impression that the nominal reason for blocking the Colonel (that he uses an edit summary of "links to sources" rather than a more accurate one of "links to find sources") is simply a pretext for sticking it to someone you don't like. 28bytes (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support of unblock - but awaiting further evidence of a pattern of abuse of admin tools and/or diffs to other measures of WP:DR before commenting on the desysop. — Ched :  ?  17:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

For those that ask "why 8 days", it's because it's been a while since I did a spot check of Colonel Warden's behaviour. It only took a few minutes to find his first false edit summary, and that happpened to be the one that had been mentioned on his talk page. For anyone that actually monitors the Colonel, it shouldn't be surprising that his actions could, if one squints really hard and apply massive doses of good faith, be interpreted as only accidentally or unintentionally misleading. I'm absolutely certain that his edits and descriptions are completely intended to mislead, and he carefully leaves just enough ambiguity that, when caught, he will be able to claim that it was just a misunderstanding. It's not a misunderstanding: he's a smart man, and knows that we have admins that will use any flicker of doubt to allow him to continue his misbehaviour. It is quite apparent to me that the Colonel considers being truthful as less important than having articles kept. If you wish me to call the "non-collaborative editing" as opposed to "not being a good faith editor", I'll accept the semantic distinction. The truth remains simple: he takes steps intended to disrupt the deletion process, doesn't honestly describe his edits, misrepresents his own actions, and has been caught several times falsifying references. His actions show absolutely no sign of improvement over the years.—Kww(talk) 18:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain exactly how these "false" edit summaries caused damage? SilverserenC 18:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually, false edit summaries can be very bad. The most extreme case would be replacing an article with a giant penis with the edit summary of "spelling" and marking it a minor. A bot would likely catch that though. A better example would be PRODing an article with the edit summary of "grammar" and marking it as minor hoping to get an article deleted without anybody noticing. (which is why I always check article histories before deleting uncontested prods). What Kww is claiming CW does with edit summaries is possible but unlikely because CW, or anybody else, is not required to provide one to justify a PROD removal. He could use the edit summary "bing bing tiddle bong" if he wanted to. That's why, at least in that case, I'm more inclined to believe it was a mistake or misunderstanding. There is plain and simply no incentive for CW to "lie" when removing a PROD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I know that. I was referring specifically to the edit summaries we're discussing here, not anything else. SilverserenC 19:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
This is basically the subject that I was bringing up below. To be clear, I don't disagree with the thinking that you're espousing above, Ron. Vandals using deceptive edit summaries is certainly nothing to applaud. However, aside from the fact that nobody is claiming that Warden is actually a vandal (as far as I can tell... unless dePROD'ing is thought of as vandalism by some), I think that it's worth mentioning that there is no document that I'm aware of which states that deceptive edit summaries are in and of themselves problematic. I think that is the only real unusual aspect of this thread.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Lying undermines the basis of collaborative editing.—Kww(talk) 18:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
That's it? That's your entire reason? Nothing to do with vandalism or anything like that, just the spirit of collaborative editing? And you blocked for that? SilverserenC 18:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Collaborative editing relies on accurate representations of identity and position. The reason I come down so hard on socking is because it is deceitful. This is just another aspect of deceitful behaviour.—Kww(talk) 18:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Any comment on the concern that you're not objective enough about the Colonel to be blocking him? 28bytes (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
There's a myth that WP:INVOLVED somehow requires an exclusionist admin such as myself to go beg an inclusionist admin to block a disruptive inclusionist. I think that's the reason that people object to me, as an individual, placing this block. I would block any editor that I believed to be intentionally deceitful, whether the motivation behind the deceit is to add material or remove it. People are also getting wrapped up in the terms of this one edit. I'm not looking at it that way: I see it as simply another step in a long-term pattern of deceit.—Kww(talk) 18:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Kevin, while I admire your dedication to honesty, I'd ask you to re-read the comments above from various folks above (with consideration to WP:IDHT. There's a pretty strong consensus that your block was wrong in this case. I appreciate that you brought yourself here for the action to be reviewed, but in order for that to be an effective measure - it means that you should be taking the advice that's offered onboard too. Please rethink this approach. Thank you. — Ched :  ?  18:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I won't undo Drmies's unblock. I don't know how to deal with the Colonel so long as he has protection from people that believe his useful contributions outweigh deceit.—Kww(talk) 18:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Consider also that while multiple editors, myself included, have found Colonel Warden's edit summary phrasing suboptimal, or even inaccurate, there is little to no support for your interpretation that his edit summary was "deceitful". Your repeated use of that phrase, attacking Colonel Warden's motivation, may be construed as a personal attack. Please tone down the rhetoric and admit that your interpretation isn't the only possible interpretation of his edit summaries. Jclemens (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
If this was once, it would be "suboptimal". He's been subjected to RFCs on this very topic, where the consensus of the RFC was that his edit summaries were extremely problematic, yet, it continues. It's difficult for me to justify my block without stating the reason for it. If I did not believe that he was intentionally doing wrong, I wouldn't have blocked him. "Deceit" isn't rhetoric: it's the core justification for the block. That you are able to examine a multi-year history of this problem and still use words like "suboptimal" is a big part of the problem we have in dealing with the Colonel. You've been around long enough, and are in a position that requires sufficient detachment, that you should be able to look at this long term pattern of misbehaviour and recognize that it is intentional. I'm not certain whether you are denying that it is intentional or saying that even if intentional, it doesn't justify a block.—Kww(talk) 19:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I am still able to AGF that this is an error, based on his attempts to expand his communications and the opportunity to make an error while doing so. The various reasons have been articulated above: the content wasn't subject to a deletion process at the time the edit was made, the edit summary wasn't egregiously at odds with the edit made, the edit was made on the talk page where sources (if any) would need to be inspected and transferred to the article to have any effect on future deletion discussions, no one had pointed out the ambiguity in the edit summary to Colonel Warden before... the reasons go on and on. If anything, your reasoning is more and more problematic that more you expound upon it; you appear incapable of or unwilling to evaluate the edit summary in a detached and neutral manner--you're importing past disputes into your interpretation of this action. I would encourage you to reread carefully the posts by those who normally agree with you on such issues but are finding fault with your interpretation in this case. Jclemens (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
"Wasn't subject to a deletion process at the time the edit was made"? Only because he had removed the prod while providing no explanation as to why.—Kww(talk) 19:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Are you asserting that he was somehow required to provide an explanation? This is a truly problematic complaint, because elsewhere in this thread you note that his explanation (in the edit with the summary you find problematic) is simply a "bog-standard template and a canned statement". You really can't have it both ways: If he's using PROD, Colonel Warden is not required by policy to provide an explanation, and any explanation is more than the minimum effort required on his part. Likewise, if he provided a boilerplate explanation on the talk page, it's rather strange that you're berating him for having provided no explanation. Would you like to take a try at explaining all of this one more time in an internally consistent manner? Jclemens (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Certainly. His edit summary on the primary article edit was a removal of a tag without justification. If you look to the edit summary on the talk page to see if he had a justification, the talk page edit provided the summary of his reason: an unsupported personal belief that the article had merit, which skates by as a reason under policy, despite the fact that he has been cautioned in the past that his removal of tags without justification is problematic. His edit summary for that edit to the talk page was false: it indicated that he had provided links to sources. He did not. He provided his own completely unsupported opinion, sans sourcing.—Kww(talk) 21:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
As to the "canned statement", he makes the same misrepresentation multiple times: [2][3][4][5][6]. This is simply an extension of long-standing problematic behaviour.—Kww(talk) 21:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Again, let me be 100% clear here:
1)Are you, or are you not, asserting that there is any problematic behavior in Colonel Warden's removal of the PROD here: deprod. In other words, are you implying that the RfC somehow restricted Colonel Warden from using WP:PROD process normally? ("If any person (even the author him/herself) objects to the deletion (usually by removing the {{proposed deletion}} tag - see full instructions below), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed.") I'll note that {{PROD}} is not included in the list of cleanup tags at WP:TC.
2) Is there any evidence that anyone else had informed Colonel Warden that his canned statement is in any way problematic? Are you willing to acknowledge that if the canned statement was created in good faith (even though unclear or inaccurate), there is no particular evidence of bad faith by reusing it? Jclemens (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
1)His deprod, while flying in the face of the consensus reached at his RFC, met the letter of policy.
2)I no longer see any reason to extend any assumption of good faith to Colonel Warden with regard to false or misleading edit summaries. If this had been an editor with a different history, I would view it in a different light.—Kww(talk) 23:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If it wasn't about this one specific edit/summary (which in itself looked perfectly fine to me), but was instead for a lengthy period of alleged deceitful behavior which you knew would be controversial, and you have had significant disagreement with CW yourself in the past, then it seems clear to me that you should have brought the problem here, providing diffs for a sufficient number of examples of the alleged deceit, and sought a community consensus, rather than indef block yourself while providing a very lame example of "the last straw". I think that was a poor misjudgment, and I think it is disappointing that after seeking a review here, your response is to really not listen but to continue with an adversarial attitude towards community consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I've simply explained my reason for having blocked in the first place. I have not attempted to reinstate the block, nor have I directed any criticism towards the admin that unblocked him.—Kww(talk) 19:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support unblock not quite sure that a desysop of KWW is justified for one such incident, but would be if a pattern emerged. Block is totally out of order both for the 8 day gap, and its stated reason, and for being an isolated example. Even if the RFC had closed with a requirement that Col Warden not do such deprods then after this time an isolated example would justify a note on his talkpage not a block. We should remember that the Colonel Warden RFC failed to come to consensus because some of the proposers tried to to use it to create a defacto policy that the removal of prods requires a rationale to be stated. That view was pretty thoroughly rejected, the RFC became contentious partly because it is deeply inappropriate to try and change policy by criticising some for following policy; An RFC on a proposal to make t more difficult to decline prods would have been a less contentious way to change policy, and I'm pretty sure such a proposal would have been rejected. Suggest KWW unblock Col Warden and apologise to him, then consider himself involved re Col Warden in future. ϢereSpielChequers 18:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Kww can't unblock - Drmies already has. Peridon (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Kww, I did not comment here as part of some process of being a "defender" of Col Walden nor to provide him "protection". Please consider the possibility that observers of your actions here really do, on balance and on review of the previous RfC, find the commentaries of JClemens and others above as more compelling than your arguments justifying your block. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 19:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support unblock – I would have unblocked also, but another administrator has already gotten to it. In any case, this is a situation in which blocking alone will not resolve. This needs more discussion as to what to do, keeping in mind Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden. Given that the RfC has apparently failed, this may need to be escalated to Arbitration, in which the Arbitration Committee may potentially issue bans and desysops given what has happened. --MuZemike 22:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • oppose I'll be the lone voice of dissent here I guess. While we're all hanging kww out to dry, remember as pointed out above, CW was taken to task before for misleading edit summaries. As we've got an argument above about whether or not he "lied", it's clear he didn't exactly tell the truth. Could you imagine the reaction on an AfD if someone said "Keep - Lot's of sources on Horatio Smith out there [7]"? Linking to a google search is clearly not the same as linking to actual sources. He linked to the potential of sources, not the sources themselves. Who knows if he even checked any of those links to see if sources existed in any of those searches in the first place, and if he did do that, why didn't he just list those sources? So for someone who has had issues with prods and edit summaries in the past, I would expect them to be hyper-aware of how they are doing them now if they were truly trying to improve and work with the community. His edit summary at best is misleading, if not a lie. The fact that it was 8 days ago is irrelevant if kww believed the behaviour was likely to continue.--Crossmr (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Unblock - What a surprise, another attempt to kneecap a prominent ARS member... Carrite (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • History I've been adding the {{find}} template to talk pages in this way for years now. Here's some examples going back three years:
March 2011 : Academic achievement
March 2010 : Governance, risk management, and compliance
March 2009 : Enid Marx
So, to me, updating the talk page in this way is a routine action like adding a project template and I have done this hundreds of times. The habit was already old at the time of my RfC/U and don't recall any complaint about it there. Kww and others may just be noticing this for the first time but they've had plenty of opportunity to comment on this before. The idea that it's some kind of devious deception seems quite preposterous. What is the supposed ill-gotten gain? Isn't the result of the action quite obvious and transparent? Who am I supposed to be hoodwinking and how is it that they haven't complained before? Warden (talk) 00:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Can you point to the specific sources you added to that article?--Crossmr (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
It wasn't on the article, this whole thing was *on the Talk page* - you don't add sources to the article by editing the Talk page, so there is no possibility of any rational editor thinking that making an edit *on the Talk page* was adding a source *to the article*. There was no edit summary anywhere that suggested that CW had added anything *to the article*. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Fine, can you point to any specific sources he added to the talk page of the article? with this edit [8]. "Links to sources" would indicate a direct link to actual sources. As I pointed out above, if I was at an AfD and said "Here are some sources on the subject [9]" how well do you think that would go over? He did not directly link any sources. Yet his edit summary clearly made it look as if he did. That's a false edit summary and as CW has pointed out he did that intentionally it can only be a lie.--Crossmr (talk) 07:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
And if I said "The moon is made of carrots" I'd be lying too. CW never said "Here are some sources on the subject". He added the {{find}} template to an article Talk page, which he has been doing since 2009, and used the same edit summary he has always used, and nobody has complained about it before. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
He said "link to sources" should we assume they would be sources for another subject if not the subject of the talk page? Should we not assume that there would actually be sources linked? or do we want to starting getting into the definition of "to" or perhaps "link" or even "sources"? Just because no one caught that edit before doesn't mean it's ok. By that logic if anyone can get away with something once, that means they can do it indefinitely because no one complained the first time. So once again: Did he or did he not link to actually sources in that edit? His edit summary indicates he did, but I can't seem to find any actual sources linked. I see a search linked that may or may not contain actualy sources, but no evidence that he actually looked at any of those sources and verified if anyone of them were relevant to the article in question (at which point why not just link them from the talk page as an example, since he took the time to type out his reason). The linguistic dancing here trying to excuse what obviously is a false edit summary is approaching the absurd. here is an honest edit summary "adding a template with links to searches people could use to try and find sources on the subject". "link to sources" would indicate a direct link to actual sources, and to this point no one has demonstrated that happened.--Crossmr (talk) 12:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, seeing as it hadn't been a problem every time he used it for the preceding 3 years, when you saw it and were confused by it, you could have assumed good faith and asked him what he meant, or (assuming you looked at the actual diff) you could have politely suggested he modify that summary in future. How about that for an idea? Or do you prefer an indefinite block as a first response? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
First response? Would this be the first time that CW has had issues with his edit summaries?--Crossmr (talk) 12:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Fascinating So we have evidence here that Colonel Warden has been referring to using the find template on the talk page as links to sources since 2009, which predates the RfC/U, and yet no one has complained about it until now, when Kww found it and decided that it merited an immediate indef? Does anyone else see a problem with how the feedback on the accuracy of the edit summary was delivered? Jclemens (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Just because something escaped notice doesn't mean it's de facto permitted. It means someone didn't notice it, but the general behaviour was noticed and previously brought up.--Crossmr (talk) 07:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • So do you think that a talk page edit with a summary of "links to sources" was such an obviously wrong description of adding a template with a bunch of Google links (that actually do lead to sources in this case) that Colonel Warden should be blocked on the basis of past edit summary transgressions? If so, then your argument is internally consistent, though I disagree with it. If not, then wouldn't a warning have been the first, best step to take when a less-than-optimal or erroneous edit summary was discovered? Jclemens (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Needs to be discussed more[edit]

Another thing I didn't notice at the time, but Ron Ritzman pointed out above. The edits in question by Colonel Warden were made 8 days prior to the block. Regardless of the reason for the incident, I find this fact to be completely unacceptable. SilverserenC 17:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Um... Last I checked edit summaries aren't required at all, unless something has changed recently. So what's the story with blocking over edit summaries? I don't really care about Warden being blocked, or KWW's admin status, but... whether or not editors are being blocked over (otherwise normal) edit summaries is kinda important.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • He was blocked for attempting to deceive people via edit summaries. That's a different thing than omitting one.—Kww(talk) 18:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Kww seems to have appointed himself as a "monitor" of Col. Warden. I suggest he not be allowed to interact with Col. Warden at all. If a monitor is needed, a neutral editor in this discussion could be nominated. Yopienso (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
    Agree an interaction ban is needed. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 19:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
    Is there a neutral editor? I wouldn't block CW even though I recognize he does use deceptive edit summaries. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
    Give DreamFocus the bit. Seriously, I think there's plenty who are uninvolved enough to block the Colonel if a block is warranted. While all this delete/include drama takes up much of the airtime here, not every admin has a stake in it or a history with it. On the other hand, I can think of one editor who will probably put me in the pro-ARS camp for my unblock of the Colonel, but I can live with that. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - KWW's offer not to block Col W again as preferable to any interaction ban. (I tweaked my position after Kww offered this position voluntarily)Youreallycan 19:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - full interaction ban - it's clear from KWW's multiple broad-brush comments above about deceitfulness etc that they have very strong, very fundamental, negative feelings towards the Colonel. Combined with the misjudged block itself I struggle to see how KWW can be relied upon to objectively judge Colonel's behaviour in the future. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
This whole affair has surprised and concerned me. I suggested the interaction ban, but I don't support JClemens' quick move to desysop Kww. And CW apparently does need watching. Yopienso (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
For the avoidance of doubt, I don't support any attempt to desysop Kww at this point.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

If you want me to agree not to block him again, I can voluntarily do that. If the consensus is that I should have gone through the RFC process again, please don't put a ban in place that prevents me from doing so in the future.—Kww(talk) 19:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment Kww your voluntary agreement here is great, and a wise move. CW should also agree (I think) never to use ambiguously-worded edit summaries, with particular reference to any edit summaries to do with sources. Jclemens, I really think calling for a desysop of Kww is totally OTT. Pesky (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
(ec) I don't think the issue here is one of you agreeing to not do anything specific: the issue I have is one of sufficiently poor judgment that I do not believe you should be an admin. My desired outcome remains as it initially was: you to acknowledge your error, apologize to Colonel Warden for the inappropriate block, and resign the tools yourself. While an RfC/U may have more support than a straight-up desysop'ing, I maintain that the level of involvement and battlefield mentality expressed in this thread are appropriate cause for desysop'ing. If there is support for an interaction ban, as it appears here, the real question is whether an admin should maintain his bit if he's under that sort of a ban. In Cirt's case, the arbitration committee narrowly decided that he should not, but this year's committee has a different composition and is not bound by past precedents, so they may well decide to leave your bit intact--even when I'm not recused on a matter, the committee as a whole favors less strict remedies than I prefer a good bit of the time. Jclemens (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support 1-week block  Only a diety knows if someone is telling a lie, and Kww claims to have this ability.  I have no previous interactions with Kww, and since this editor is an admin, chances are that there is a good history that predicts the editor is capable of contributing to Wikipedia.  Perhaps it is time for a 1-week vacation.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't know any other way to say this, but that's ridiculous. Plenty of people can know if another person is lying. If you call a friend and ask what they're up to and they say they're at work but you can see them across the street in a cafe, you don't need to be a deity to know they're lying. If someone says they added sources and all they added was a template to various searches, its easy to see they've lied.--Crossmr (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a difference between evidence of "intent to deceive" and the intent itself.  Just because someone says that they are at work when they are at home, doesn't mean that they had intent to deceive, they might have answered the phone while taking medication, and really thought they were at work.  The logic of your statement that uses a definition unlike the one being refuted falls in the category of a logical fallacy of equivocation, which as defined in our article, "consists in employing the same word in two or more senses".  Your conclusion that my statement was "ridiculous" does not follow from the premises and is as well an escalation.  The point remains that an administrator on Wikipedia should not call another editor a liar.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Are you saying CW was on drugs? Because linking to a search which may or may not contain sources vs providing actual links to real checked sources could possibly only be confused if one was heavily medicated. The fact is, CW claimed he linked to sources when he did no such thing. He's also stated that he's done it before and should be well aware of what it is is he's doing and what it means.--Crossmr (talk) 07:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment (edit conflict plus losing the thread by getting on the wrong noticeboard) Like Yopienso, I was surprised by the way this blew up. I was coming back in to suggest a voluntary refraining from involvement by Kww, but am happy to see that he beat me to it. I also don't support a move to desysop Kww - and if he makes a voluntary agreement, I don't feel that it should be necessary. Peridon (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose any interaction ban or other sanction of KWW. There is simply no need. What we have here is a situation where an editor has made a number of misleading edit summaries, and this after an RFC/U on the very same topic. KWW has made the inference (IMO correctly) that the editor in question is a chronic liar because, after the RFC/U, there is no possibility of this being a mistake or oversight. KWW has decided (again correctly) that this sort of deliberate deceit, combined with CW's constant battleground behaviour, makes this a less congenial working environment. I wouldn't have gone for the indef right off the bat- two weeks would have made the point juts fine- but I think that there was nothing wrong with KWW's interpretation of the situation, his good judgment, or his good faith. A community-imposed interaction ban or a desysop are simply not tenable options at this point. Reyk YO! 01:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Warden explained above that that edit summary has been something he's always used and it's always meant the same thing and no one has brought it up to him before as being a problem, including in the RfC/U. On the other hand, we have Kww, who has exhibited significant battleground mentality in his responses to people above, not even considering the fact that he is clearly involved when having anything to do with Warden, because of past interactions. SilverserenC 01:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oy and a disgusted trout to several editors for this whole nonsensical episode. For the sake of clarity, I don't support the block on Colonel Warden, I do support the strongly worded warning about CW's misleading edit summaries (and note that this is nothing new), I don't support de-adminning Kww, and I support a restriction on Kww's use of admin tools in regards to CW or any other member of the ARS. If Kww notes another problematic situation, Wikipedia will not explode while the issue is discussed on AN/I. There is already a rough consensus that Kww doesn't qualify as an uninvolved admin, and that should stop any use of the tools on CW or some of the more enthusiastic "inclusionists". There also appears to be a rough consensus that CW's edit summaries are misleading (at best), and that simply linking to a Google search is not a suitable substitute for adding actual references. JClemens's call for de-sysopping is a case of using a hydrogen bomb instead of a flyswatter that makes me regret my vote supporting him for the Arbitration Committee; it is an overreaction to a perceived crisis worthy of a (U.S.) governmental entity. </rant> Horologium (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi. You are aware that CW added the link to the Google search (ie {{find}}) only on the Talk page, and not in the actual article, aren't you? Even when an article is sourced, it does seem like a useful thing to have on a Talk page to me. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware of that. However, while it may be a useful thing to have on a talk page, it doesn't mean the same thing as de-prodding an article with the edit summary of "adding sources". Horologium (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I haven't seen where he de-PRODed an article with the edit summary "adding sources" - I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I don't think anyone has shown us an example of it, so if you could do that I'd be grateful to see it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we can't do that, because the diffs that Kww linked to originally are from a deleted article, so I guess he only meant for other admins to be able to look at them. SilverserenC 02:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I am an admin - if the claimed edit is there, please show me it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I found that he had it userified with the history attached. Here it is. And I see he only said remove prod on the article page. The talk page comment this is all about is this one. I honestly can't see what the deception is. He said he added a link to sources, which he certainly did and has always done it that way. SilverserenC 02:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Could you show me which sources it was that he linked to?--Crossmr (talk) 07:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
The sources available in that search? Do you want me to like get them from the search for you? SilverserenC 08:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Ohhh... so you're saying he linked to a search not to the actual sources themselves? That's interesting, because what I actually understood from his edit summary was that he was actually linking to the sources themselves. I assume then that every search result was a relevant source for the article and that he verified it before linking to that search and claiming he was linking sources? I mean who would blindly link to a search without bothering to go through it to verify there were actually sources there before indicating that they were actually providing links to usable sources? But then..if he did that, why not just link those actual found and verified sources directly on the talk page?--Crossmr (talk) 09:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
As has generally been accepted here, adding {{find}} to an article *Talk* page is a useful thing to do. It is not meant to be a static list of sources at that time, it is meant to be there as a dynamic tool for future editors to use when further searching for new sources. You know, something new needs to be added, and a quick link to a categorised set of Google results is handy - that kind of thing? Yes, it would be great to do an even better thing too, like unearthing good sources and adding them to the article, but the absence of doing an even better thing is not a valid criticism of doing a merely good thing. But even putting that all aside, what do you actually want to come out of this Crossmr? If you think some admin action is needed, just come out and tell is what it is rather than continually complaining about CW without saying what you want to happen -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
No one said adding find wasn't helpful, but your strawman really does little more than show how weak your argument is. The issue is over a false edit summary. The fact that the edit itself does not match what he did on the page. And outside of certain people attempting to rewrite the definition of "link" "to" and "sources" I haven't seen any evidence provided that he did not in fact provide a false edit summary.--Crossmr (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes indeed. Here is the edit that removed the PROD - there is *no* edit summary suggesting sources have been added. CW's comment on the de-PROD is at User talk:Colonel Warden/Secrets of a Small Town, where he also did not claim to have added sources. This is the edit to the Talk page that added the {{find}} with the edit summary "+ links to sources &c." So in the example given, there is no claim by CW that he added any sources to the article, and no dishonest edit summary. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry if you're regretting me doing what I've said I would be doing--protecting editors from administrator abuse. I don't believe in a Wikipedia where admins are allowed to get off with an "interaction ban" or an "I told you so" without an accompanying desysop when they've blocked an editor under such circumstances. I bear Kww no ill will, but his temperment and decision making ability is obviously incompatible with the role of administrator. Life would be simplest if he would admit his mistake, apologize to Colonel Warden, and resign the tools. You know what? Two out of three might even be enough, but so far... zero of three are forthcoming. Jclemens (talk) 01:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • What you will get is simply a statement that I recognize that consensus is that I should not have blocked, and won't do so again. No apology is due to Colonel Warden, as his statement that no one has complained about that specific edit summary is a red herring: do editors have to go through each and every misleading edit summary he uses and catalog them for him? Nor will I resign my tools over one difference in judgment.—Kww(talk) 02:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Do editors have to point out that they have an issue with a minor edit summary which he has used for years? Yes, yes they do. Especially when it's something that has never been brought up to him before, so how is he supposed to know it is an issue? I would certainly think that, if it wasn't brought up at the RfC/U or ever before, that there isn't an issue with such a minor thing. SilverserenC 02:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • His misuse of edit summaries was one of the major topics of the RFC. No, there was not a catalog generated of each individual misleading edit summary that he used. An adult editor should be able to examine his edit summary vs. the contents of his edits and see whether they align or not.—Kww(talk) 02:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Kevin, the block was wrong. That you acknowledge that consensus is against it is of little use: it is obvious, and if you failed to recognize that we'd be doubting your eyesight. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Fine ... I was wrong to think that blocking Colonel Warden would have any positive effect.—Kww(talk) 02:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Wow...this is why people are calling for your desysop. This kind of response right here. SilverserenC 02:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens, I've been seeing you around a lot, and I just want to offer support to your general stand against abuse. Don't burn out! BeCritical 03:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Some comments: Both Kww and Colonel Warden are valuable to Wikipedia, each in their own way. I am opposed both to any sanction against the Colonel and to any desysop of Kww in this matter. However, it would be good if Kww would recuse from adminstrative matters concerning the Colonel for the next quite - a - long - time. It would also be good if the Colonel could switch to a slightly longer edit summary, such as "added link to possible sources". Cardamon (talk) 07:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Well put. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 11:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I have today been trying out a longer edit summary for similar cases: "add a series of links to various search interfaces to help find additional reference material; document that the article has been previously been tagged for a proposed deletion; &c.". It seems quite prolix and my browser doesn't seem to remember this in the way that it remembers shorter common edit summaries so I may continue to experiment. Warden (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Time to close this incident?[edit]

The consensus is clear that the block of CW was bad, and it has been reverted - and it's pretty clear that no further admin action against CW is going to happen here. And it doesn't look like there is any consensus for action against KWW now that he has voluntarily agreed not to block CW again. Time to close it and move on? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Pesky (talk) 13:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
The community got what it wanted with Kww - through on his 4th RFA. Interesting that the victim here was one of only a handful of opposes on the successful RFA [10]. Bit of history maybe. Leaky Caldron 13:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Do not close, please. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Then tell us what admin action you want. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I consent to the close. I have enough material here to file a RfArb seeking Kww's desysop if that proves to be the route that he chooses. Jclemens (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Close the productive portion of discussion has passed. Nobody Ent 16:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless, CW is a vexatious editor[edit]

Editors commenting above may want to look at this. CW removed a PROD from Cauca molly (which was tagged as unreferenced, which it was), and then posted a query on WT:V (see bottom of page). I pointed out to him the reason why WP:V is policy, looked for a source, provided it, and added it (something which he's clearly not interested in doing, only removing PROD tags as quickly as possible). Warden's response? He added a (failed verification) tag to my reference, despite the reference being exactly correct (Link). Whether or not KWW's block was correct, there is only a finite length of time that this editor's disruptiveness needs to be tolerated. Black Kite (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

This forum is for seeking admin action - what action do you want? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
The above was more for background (after all, that little escapade was today), but when you've already had an RFC that clearly concluded that there was a problem with CW's actions, especially on removing PRODs and leaving deceptive edit summaries, and he's still doing it and it doesn't appear that blocking is allowed, what do you suggest? Black Kite (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I've already given a warning to CW about their combative language, and I hope that this episode can serve as a further warning. Community enforced behavioral restrictions are within the auspice of this page. "Do not remove prods" or "Do not use the word 'deletionist'" are both outcome I could live with. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
If you want a community ban on CW removing PRODs, I really don't think you're going to get that here. I also don't think you'll have much success having him banned from using the world "deletionist", seeing as both it and "inclusionist" are in widespread use across the project. If you want to get either of those to stick, I'd think an RFC is your only real possibility. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The source added by Black Kite was tagged because it does not fully verify the text which it cites. In particular, it does not support the claim made by the article that this fish is "also called the South American molly". I was alert to this issue because I had already started correcting the various names given to this species by the article. Black Kite removed the cleanup tag without establishing what the problem was or engaging in discussion on the talk page. If I were to take such action - removing cleanup tags or adding sources which did not fully correspond to the article text - then BK's camp would instantly accuse me of being a liar and rush to block me on such grounds. BK's action in following me to this article and engaging in disruptive editing seems improper. Note that Black Kite, like Kww, seems quite involved as we have a history of conflict stemming from incidents such as this DRV in which his deletion of my article was overturned. Warden (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • BK, we know this is just one more example of the sort of behavior that got CW to RFC before. But the community is too evenly divided on this topic to handle it on its own and compared to others in the area (remember A Nobody?), his behavior isn't problematic enough that Arbcom is likely to act. Maybe now's time for RFC_2 or in six months, but nothing we can really do here. MBisanz talk 15:49, 18 March 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:Dreadstar made a big to-do about disappearing himself from Wikipedia in early February and nearly had to leave in disgrace over conduct outlined in various arbcom cases relating to transcendental meditation. He is now trying to tarnish my anonymous editing and that of others with a sockpuppet tag. I think he's on some sort of power-trip. Perhaps a neutral administrator could talk to him?

Thanks. (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm wondering if the witchunt [11] idea is misplaced.
    • This is a complete fabrication, "nearly had to leave in disgrace over conduct outlined in various arbcom cases relating to transcendental meditation." I am very familiar with that case. This comment alone should lead any editor to investigate the IP.
    • The IP's edits to What the Bleep appear to be in the face of editor agreement.
    • The IP is concurrently posting on the Fringe Theories Notice Board against Dreadstar,
    • Looks to me like the witch hunt is not against the IP at all but against Dreadstar.
    • I also worked on What the Bleep at the time Science Apologist was working there, and whether the IP is a sock of SA or not, his manner is very similar and I believe an SPI to clear the air is/was warranted.
(olive (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC))
  • Let's just say that Dreadstar's approach to sock tagging absent CU confirmation is highly inconsistent [12]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Mathsci has removed the IP's post on the Fringe Theories NB since my original post here.(olive (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC))
  • I have no idea whether the IP is a sockpuppet of SA (the location seems wrong). His editing at the moment seems disruptive and his double posting on WP:FTN was inappropriate, hence the removal. Mathsci (talk) 05:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • With the caveat that I know nothing about SA, * "Disruptive" in this case could easily be someone new who's behaving normally when accused w/o CU, yes? and * The rollback of the sock-puppet tag removal seems inappropiate. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I think SA is a banned user, but other than that, it seems Dreadstar and the IP are engaged in a content dispute here. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Aaron, I'd be surprised if the IP is a new editor, given the way he introduced this section (with reference to an old case, but with a misinterpretation of it designed to promote a particular view of Dreadstar). SlimVirgin (talk) 06:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

This account (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be the same editor as the IP, who has been editing with the first IP for over 6 months (on topics related to fringe physics and cold fusion). In the past SA has edited from NY not Boston. However, stylistically these editors seem indistinguishable from SA. Mathsci (talk) 05:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not an account, just another IP. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

SA/jps/VanishedUser314159 frequently used hyphenation: good-or-bad, not-so-up-to-date, etc, in talk page comments and that seems also to be true of the IPs. Mathsci (talk) 05:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As for the stylistic similarities, both the IPs and the vanished/banned user seem fond of the word "pandering" in edit summaries [13] [14]. But that correlation alone is too weak for me to draw conclusions. Further investigation is warranted, I think. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Using the word "tenor" metaphorically to describe a lead proponent [15] [16] is a bit more striking. Other similarities include "move up" [17] [18] and an interest in serial comma consistency [19] [20]. Ending with "perhaps?" is also a less-common similariy [21] [22]. Unfortunately, this kind of evidence proves nothing according to Dreadstar, so I'm curious what he'll come up with as evidence. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 06:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
All the above is intersting enough, true, and I'll eat my hat if Slim's wrong about this person... but... but... I'm always concerned when we (collectivly) get our DUCK hunting caps on. Even if this does turn out to be the SA irritant, shouldn't we be taking the tiny extra effort to be polite and do all the steps properly? Looking at the tag reversion by Dreadstar, particularly with the totally-true "get some CU" edit summary that he reverted over, I find that I'm not comfortable no matter who it is. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 07:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The last ipsock of SA is here for comparison: (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Mathsci (talk) 07:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • My first impression here is one of a distinct air of WP:BOOMERANG on both counts.
1. On the content end, it would appear that the talk page discussion shows a consensus which does not favor the 76.IP editor's preferred version. see: WP:CON policy for further information.
2. On the administrative end, I'm not seeing anything actionable in regards to Dreadstar. I suspect that SlimVirgin has been fairly accurate in her observations. I've never been much of a sock hunter, and I do see a distinction between using an IP vs. a registered account - that said, I'd rather see some definitive CU data to the circumstantial "A looks like B" type of diffs that so often fill up these threads; but I do concede the similarities others have noted. — Ched :  ?  08:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Prior to the ipsock I mentioned, SA used another Columbia IP (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [23]. That was discussed at WP:AE, after which one year blocks were enacted. The timing of edits might rule out SA in this case. Mathsci (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Or they might not. There is enough time between then to travel from NY to Boston, never mind electronic ways of appearing to have done so. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I also have the impression that SA/VanishedUser314159 is active again using IP socks.
The Columbia IPs he used until they were blocked in Dec 2011 are:
And I suspected this one too, but it is currently not in use:
--POVbrigand (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
This sequence of edits is a bit strange.[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] [33][34] SA here acted in concert with the IP. Also they agreed on the talk page of the article.[35] Similarly in the discussions about Energy Catalyzer on WP:FTN and its fourth AfD. However, I am not sure these show anything conclusive. There does appear to be a considerable overlap of subject matter between the 4 ipsocks of SA and the IP here. Mathsci (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I found this remarkable similarity between the currently discussed IPs and IP, both at the same geolocate. - Talk:Cold fusion - 18:36 12 March 2012 - explanation that "prove" is not the right word [36] - Tom Van Flandern - 18:57 12 March 2012 - "prove is not the right word" [37]
--POVbrigand (talk) 10:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I did not realize that witch hunting was what Wikipedia was like behind the scenes. This discussion has been very educational. I will not be contributing to Wikipedia anymore. If this is the normal way IP authors are treated who are trying to fix the encyclopedia anybody can edit, maybe it would be a good idea to stop asking readers to edit with those ratings at the bottom of the articles. That's why I started changing things here. (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Rant Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Sockpuppet_investigations clearly states only blocked accounts should be tagged; editors are directed to file an WP:SPI if they suspect something is amiss. This fad of editors defacing IP editors talk pages without bothering to file an spi should be stopped in its tracks per it's fucking rude. Someone please indef Dreadstar (and any other tag crazy editor) until they agree to knock it off. Wikipedia: The encyclopedia where anyone can get treated like shit. Nobody Ent 12:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Then what is Template:Ipsock for? This "fad" seems to have a template that's been around for years. Without looking at the merit of Dreadstar's tags, he's just mistagging the IP's.--Atlan (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
"This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit" means that all editors should be treated fairly whether they are admins or IPs. Bringing an editor to ANI and to the Fringe NB in the middle of a content discussion which is why we are here, and mischaracterizing the admin and the content discussion is not appropriate editor behaviour. That's the fundamental issue here. Secondary to that, is the possibility that IP may be a banned user.(olive (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC))
Clearly, an anon IP like 76 who exhibits enough knowledge of wiki to bring an ANI and a noticeboard complaint this fast is a former user with an agenda, particularly when it parallels a previous pattern of a blocked user. This is no newbie getting bitten, it's someone who lacks the integrity to get a user name and work according to the rules. And Dreadstar is an experienced admin with a good nose for trouble. IP disruption of articles and topics does need to be dealt with quickly; there's no need to hide behind anonymity. Montanabw(talk) 15:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey, I'm a long-term IP editor, and I read AN/I pretty regularly for the lulzy drama. I guess I just lack integrity. (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Interesting that we're supposed to rely on "noses" here rather than any form of clearly presented evidence that others may judge by themselves. Has Dreadstar's nose received any official endorsement? Has he ever been a CU, for example? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

This is part of a years-long vendetta between Dreadstar and Scienceapologist/jps/etc. I don't think an editor who wrote this (admin-only, see deleted contributions) has any business sleuthing out SA's alleged socks. Skinwalker (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess I fail to see how appropriate use of admin tools and then later recognizing a writing style when someone is trying to sneak back equals a "vendetta?" The issue I see here is an unwarranted ANI on Dreadstar by an anon IP who has in fact been engaging in disruptive editing in an area that is a familiar haunt of a user who had his account deleted by Dreadstar. Sometimes someone is in the right and someone is in the wrong. I see from that link (just what I can read, the public bit) that another admin previously also had to address SA's behavior, at least, account deletion would suggest that. As for the rest, we all have bad days and sometimes aren't the perfect diplomat in our phrasing (just today, I had to hit backspace several times to remove some words from a comment elsewhere prior to hitting "save page." I did, fortunately). Montanabw(talk) 17:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
You misunderstand. The link I gave was to the mainspace article ScienceApologist, not to his user page User:ScienceApologist. Dreadstar did not delete SA's user account. He created a extremely derogatory mainspace article about SA, then deleted it. I see that you are not an admin and therefore can't read the deleted text, but it is quite a bit more than a minor diplomatic failing. Skinwalker (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
If he really did that, why hasn't ArbCom desysopped him for "conduct unbecoming of an admin" and all that? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
You'd have to ask the arbitrators. During the discretionary sanction arbitration I submitted detailed (e.g. TLDR) evidence of Dreadstar's behavior[38] that highlighted this incident. They ignored it completely. Skinwalker (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I just did. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why SkinWalker thinks the arbs ignored his evidence. They posted a decision on that case after a lot of evidence was presented, SkinWalker's included.
  • My concern is that an editor who didn't get a result he wanted out of an AE is trying again, here, which seems a lot like poisoning the well.
  • The issue here, to reiterate, is that an IP whose edits were against talk page agreement [39] then brought one of the editors who disagreed with him here, posted about that same editor concurrently on the Fringe Theories Notice Board, while posting patently false information about that editor. This is not about a newbie editor who was attacked as he suggests for his editing. Its about an editor who may have used Notice boards to gain an advantage in a discussion and against an editor he disagreed with. That doesn't sit well, in my opinion.(olive (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC))[edit]

This IP editor has admitted to being the "home address" of one of the year-blocked edu IP socks of SA [40]. The 69 editor has edited as recently as Feb this year, despite the block on the edu address. Based on the use of the word "flapdoodle" [41] [42], I think it probable that the 69 IP was SA as well. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

"Congratulations, officer, turns out that house you serached w/o a warrent did have drugs in it!" Forgive the hyperbole, but can I please just say "!!" and have it jog our collective memories? Am I alone in thinking that voracious DUCK hunting does more harm than the (actual) socks? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Last time I checked, there's no warrant needed to look at someone's contributions on Wikipedia. They're all public to begin with. On the other hand, you might want to protest against "banned means banned" instead, but this is not the venue for it. (And if you still doubt the self-admitted socking, the 69 and 128 IPs participated in the same AfD, although they had the integrity of not double !voting [43] [44].) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────NOTE - A trout to any that think this is a "newbie". Close this joke of a thread already: Dreadstar is not on trial here. What a shame this is. Doc talk 08:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Agree, this is not a newbie, and the thread is only stoking drama. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
    • This is pretty low-volume "drama" really, and "stoke" implies "fire" which I'm not seeing. Just some people stating their opinions. But, yeah, close away. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
(ec)Dreadstar is not on trial, the thread boomeranged to the submitting IP and therefore I think it is legitimate to discuss whether or not the IPs are used by a banned user. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  • based on my comments above, I don't see anything more to be done here and would support a close.(olive (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC))
  • I think this is all pointing to a continued ban evasion with different IP socks, can we start a CU for IP 69 ? I would then add another IP with the same geolocate as 69 to that case. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I've been gone a lone time now. I thought I would check in at some places to see if my break made a difference, then I see this. If you think SA is editing against his ban, do an SPI and check. Quit all the guesses and defending a friend and let the checkusers do what they know how to do. This is past silliness already. I'm sorry, but after reading all of the above about this, I felt the need to say, give it to the checkusers to see who it is. It's not rocket science here, it's the rules, remember! The IP was upset and said things not liked, not true maybe, don't know. But IP's are allowed to edit here and this doesn't make anyone want to edit when they can be accused of being someone else without a reasonable doubt. Just wanted to say what I thought before I leave. I sure hope you all decide though to get this checked out and stop the duck hunt at this point. Have a good day! --CrohnieGalTalk 14:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

propose to close the topic here --POVbrigand (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


Edit restored, apology made, nothing more to see or say. --John (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

What passes for vandalism these days? My comment was removed [[50]]. I have asked the user to reinstate the comment but they have yet to do so. Please advise.Hackneyhound (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The other editor has already apologised and noted that this revert was a mistake here. Is your issue simply that you want them to re-revert, and their response was to politely suggest you did it yourself? If so, I'm not sure what action you are expecting but it is unlikely an administrator is going to do anything about it QU TalkQu 17:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Hackneyhound, your edits are producing random characters in other people's comments, like here[51] in addition to in the link you have provided above. The small "o" in the time stamp. I don't know if it is some sort of techinical problem on your end or what, but that's why people are reverting them as vandalism.--Racerx11 (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Your latest edit did it again.[52] Racerx11 (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The revert borders on harassment. Labeling an accidental edit, which was far from sinister as Vandalism is a joke. And removal of a legitimate comment for no apparent reason. The user seen my name and went straight to undo without even checking the content of my edit. So is an accidental 'o' vandalism?Hackneyhound (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
You did it on at least three separate occasions. So I don't know, is it vandalism? It appeared to me as such when I first saw the diff, because the extraneous character is the first thing you see, at the top. But I don't why you are putting stuff like that there. There is no reason for it and makes no sense. Then again, why do people vandalize at all? Anyway, that's why I speculated it may be a technical problem. Is it?--Racerx11 (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Who was that dude--they were brought up on the board here only a few days ago. He used to edit from some handheld device which would randomly remove text, so that it might be something technical is possible. Then again, I type on a netbook with a trackpad, and occasionally my cursor flies all over the place as well. Drmies (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
My 'O' button keeps sticking but also the edit window keeps jumping up mid sentence. Its not like I entered a swear word or defaced the article. Its certainly not vandalism. What ever happened to assuming good faith? Why did Bjmullan remove my entire comment as well as the accidental character? And yes I'm on a netbook. Big hands, small keyboard. Hackneyhound (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Weeeeell some might argue that the letter "o" represents a rectum, and that you're calling people "asshole" by doing so. But that would be a very far-fetched accusation. Drmies (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, case dismissed. There's nothing actionable here. As QuiteUnusual remarked above, the editor has apologized, and that's all there is to it. (I said as much on the editor's talk page.) No admin is going to do anything else, so let's get back to the important business of improving our coverage of YouTube personalities and manga. Someone, please close this. Drmies (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

New Class Project Article[edit]

I encountered Northwest Kansas Technical College earlier today and nominated it for speedy deletion as a test page. In the course of advising the user to utilize the sandbox, I noticed that their talk page is implying a username with multiple users attempting to complete a university project with inadequate experience. I have advised them to use the Sandbox, but the two previous speedies on their page suggest that they made need additional help. As it stands, the article I mentioned was speedied by WikiDan61 on 3/14, but was re-created by the user on 3/16. They have not responded to any talk page messages, and it is possible that they may not understand the significance thereof. CittaDolente (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

  • No one else has edited that page or its previous installments--rather than a project, this is someone from the college giving them their article. That's a great thing, but the username is unacceptable. I will delete the article (and there is nothing worth userfying), block the user name, and leave them a note. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
One of the online ambassadors should probably reach out to this school. They are likely editing in good faith, but just don't know how to get started. (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Brewing problem[edit]

Could someone(s) who has more time than me take a look into a brewing problem on a number of different user talk pages. I happened to make a comment on User Talk:Guy Macon (a user I tried to assist in the past) to User: Hengistmate about distinctions (or the lack thereof) between admins and non-admins, and ended up finding out that there's a whole mass of less than pleasant interactions between at least 5 editors here. I see 2 very experienced users (User:Andy Dingley and User: Biscuittin unhappy with each other (note, specifically, User Talk:Andy Dingley#Undiscussed deletions). I see User:Hengistmate using that discussion as a claim that Andy Dingley is incivil (at least), at User Talk:Borealdreams#Don't let it get you down. (which looked like this before Borealdreams removed part of it on the advice of Guy Macon). Hengistmate is partly upset and Andy Dingley because of a less than civil conversation that occurred at Talk:Tank#Country of Origin. and lead to this discussion on Andy Dingley's user talk; later, he became more upset because Guy Macon warned Hegistmate but not Andy Dingley (see [this since deleted discussion on Guy Macon's talk page, and the followups on my talk page at User Talk:Qwyrxian#Your recent message. and User Talk:Qwyrxian#I was wrong.. Guy Macon also made claims of bad behavior against Hengistmate at User Talk:Borealdreams#March, 2012.

─────────────────────────Can anyone tell who wrote the above paragraphs, as I'm getting pretty annoyed by Guy claiming I did, and then writing below in his "Cast of Characters" (who Borealdreams neglected to mention, and who should be notified) as I never did anything of the sort? I wasn't even near a computer for the 4 days this shitstorm was brewing. [sorry for bad indenting, but want to get at the top of this] Borealdreams (talk) 02:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what's really going on here. I don't know if everybody's acting badly, and all need to go to their separate corners. Or if just some people are acting badly, and they need to be warned more strongly and/or sanctioned. Or maybe just these people have different interaction styles and aren't dealing well with others. I'm not even sure if all of the above discussions are actually "really" connected.

Of course, the inevitable question is "what admin action are you requesting"? I am not in any way recommending sanctions against anyone. I'm simply seeing a bunch of tinder that looks set to explode, and I'd rather stop it now if there's some way to do so, since, at a first glance, all of the participants seem to have something positive to contribute to the encyclopedia. Unfortunately, I don't have the time or inclination right now to figure it out myself; thus, I throw it open to this board to see if anybody (including the principles) can make sense of what's going on and find a way to diffuse it. I'll go notify the lot of them now...give me a minute though.Qwyrxian (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

A quick scorecard of the players:
I have chosen to not have any further interactions with Hengistmate. His actions have not risen to the level of stalking, but he has inserted himself into several discussions where I am trying to resolve a content dispute, all critical of me and none of which he had any previous involvement with. My opinion is that he just wants to pick a fight.
Borealdreams is an editor with a self-admitted COI (he sells a product that is marketed as an alternative to lightning rods) who went into full attack mode when I questioned his COI editing. He offered an "olive branch" and expressed a desire to make a fresh start. which is why we both self-deleted several comments about each other. My opinion is that he means well and has the potential to create a good article on lightning protection, and I would like to assist him with this if he is willing to let me do so. He has misbehaved, but appears to have a genuine interest in improving.
User:Wtshymanski‎ (who Borealdreams neglected to mention, and who should be notified) was the first editor Borealdreams went into full attack mode on. Wtshymanski‎'s sarcastic style greatly contributed to that conflict. Wtshymanski is an experienced engineer and he is correct both on the technical issues and on Wikipedia policy issues in this matter.
Andy Dingley is another experienced engineer who is correct both on the technical issues and on Wikipedia policy issues on the matter of lightning rods. I don't know anything about his conflict with Hengistmate on the topic of military tanks.
User:OlYeller21 (who Borealdreams neglected to mention, and who should be notified) is an uninvolved editor who worked with me at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Lightning rod in a previous attempt to resolve this mess.
I don't know anything about Biscuittin. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Just one note about the above, Guy Macon: you cannot choose to "not have any further interactions with Hengistmate", and then bring up complainsts against him to another editor as you did in this edit (which is after you told me you were ceasing interaction on my talk page). If the issue is too stressful or unpleasant for you to deal with, you've got to leave him alone entirely; otherwise, you're essentially creating a situation where you can complain about him but he can't raise complaints about you. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I participate at WP:COIN regularly and came across this issue when Guy Macon reported the COI here. I dealt mostly with Guy Macon and Borealdreams as the other involved party (Wtshymanski) only left one message on in the discussion and did not respond to a request from me. I reviewed the situation lightly and in my opinion, Guy Macon has attempted to be neutral with both parties. Please note that I haven't read every single edit from all three editors. It would take several hours to understand as the format of most discussion is dismal to say the least. As Guy Macon said, Wtshymanski has been sarcastic and condescending in his responses which seems to have offended Borealdreams who then responds very negatively with clear incivility. I can provide diffs if needed but I didn't plan on writing a report at the moment.
At COIN, I attempted to mediate for both all involved editors, as an uninvolved editor. Borealdreams seemed very interested, Wtshymanski never responded, and after the controversy quickly reignited, I bowed out. Borealdreams and Guy Macon, from what I understand, then came to an agreement and redacted several of their comments at COIN to attempt to get a discussion going. I saw that as a good sign and was/am hopefully that their discussion prove productive.
After that, I have had no interaction with Borealdreams, Wtshymanski, or Guy Macon. The only interaction I've had with any party listed in this ANI report, is here with Hengistmate. When I was looking over the case at COIN, I noticed this edit by Hengistmate which was very confusing, to say the least. I then asked who Hengistmate was at the COIN report, to see what the involved parties thought of his involvement, and Guy Macon replied that "Hengistmate appears to be an editor who is still upset over an unrelated issue. Otherwise uninvolved." After reviewing Hengistmate's edit history, he appeared to have no involvement so I moved on. I won't venture to guess what his involvement is because realistically, I haven't the slightest idea.
That's a summary of all the information I have. I'll watch this conversation and respond if necessary but as far as my interaction with Guy Macon goes and from what I've seen of his interaction with others, it looks to me like he's just attempted to neutrally participate in some inflamed debates. I've had no problems with him at all. OlYeller21Talktome 03:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
For the record, I do try to stay neutral, but my attitude is the exact opposite of believing that I am incapable of breaking any rules. I have mild Asperger's syndrome with many of the behavioral and cognitive traits that are typical of Asperger's, and because of this I welcome corrections to my behavior. Qwyrxian in particular has shown himself to be a trusted guide, and when he offers a correction (as he did above) I embrace it and do my absolute best to follow his advice, which I am very thankful for. I would like to invite anyone else who is reading this to examine my behavior and to offer corrections where needed. Positive reinforcement - telling me when I did something right - helps too. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
@, can you please sign into whatever account you use that has dealt with Guy Macon, please? Your 3 edits on that IP don't show any interaction with him. OlYeller21Talktome 14:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
The message is what is important. The messenger is not. (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
The underlying message is also important. That message is "I wish to make unsubstantiated assertions about another editor's behavior without anyone being able to check my history to see whether those claims are true." Also see: Wikipedia:IP edits are not anonymous. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
@ - Given that your message isn't substantiated with any evidence, I would say the messenger is all that matters in your case. OlYeller21Talktome 23:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
And here I was thinking someone was having trouble making beer... Prioryman (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
hehe! Yes, that was my first thought, too! Pesky (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, Im having trouble getting the boiling time of the hops just right. Any suggestions?--Racerx11 (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Hey, not a problem! Sometimes we let our sense of humour out for a little run. Anyhow, to address your concerns (hopefully) Guy Macon has a perma-invite over to my talk page. If you imagine a room full of people, a third of whom are red-green colour-blind, a third of whom are blue-yellow colour-blind, and the remaining third can see only in monochrome, none of whom realise that there are things the others can't see, and getting annoyed and frustrated at the apparent arrogant and stubborn and obstructive stupidity of most of the rest ... there you have a close parallel. Autism-spectrum (including Asberger's people) people can miss things which are blindingly obvious to a load of other people; non-autism spectrum completely lack the ability to see (with immense speed) non-obvious details which are overwhelmingly clear to the autism group, and the remaining third lag behind both groups and can't see what any of them are going on about, which means they must all be crazy ... I think the whole world is a bit like that. It's one of the biggest reasons why one shouldn't think of high-functioning autism as any kind of disability, it's just a huge difference in thought-processing. We can't help it, and the non-auties can't help not seeing what we can see so clearly, either. That's just the way we are. Pesky (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

hrrmmmm, this appears to be a real sh*tstorm, strange as though I don't care about it anymore... especially with W disappearing from the conversation (which is exactly what needed to happen as he had no value to add to the discussion.) I've redacted a whole bunch of statements made, most as directed towards Guy. I'd like to basically remove that entire COI discussion, not that I am wrong, but I already am long on my way to making a relevant page that will completely negate the validity & "weight" of the lightning rod page, so if W get's his plug in their for some BS product, who cares... the page is garbage as it is and all his merging will be for naught anyways. As far as further redacting goes, it won't happen as I won't give W the honors of adding more "victories" to his page, as he is far from correct in any point he has made.

Guy, I'm willing to let a whole lot pass, but not if you keep putting it out there I was wrong, in attack mode & had a COI, without conceding W was even more so doing such. It does get old quickly being blamed and labeled when I clearly argued my positions based on document-able evidence, whereas W just did whatever he wanted with either no justification or blatant attacks (not sarcasm & hyperbole as you've defended). And this here is exactly what H is pointing out.

I'm not here to fight, I'm here to add credible knowledge to wiki, so wherever this little SStorm goes, I don't really care. Alright, gotta get up in 4 hours to go certify our voodoo science/fringe technology is protecting the #1 priority shipping company in the US's primary distribution hub/facility. Oh that's not right of me, I didn't do my research, they may be only #2, but that's ok, as we protect both of them anyways! ;) cheers! Borealdreams (talk) 06:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

As I have explained to you multiple times, I did not criticize W. because my experience is that he will not listen, and I tried to help you in the hopes that you would.
You 'do have a conflict of interest. You have admitted it. And now you are spending a bunch of time creating a page in userspace about a product you sell while ignoring all advice about successfully creating a page on Wikipedia. Experience is a harsh teacher, but some will accept no other. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I did not start this page, nor did I ever bring it up. Whoever did is beyond me. I wasn't even online Thursday afternoon until Sunday midnight when I responded to your postings on my page as I was traveling to NH/Boston on a redeye Thursday night, then flew to Memphis Sunday evening. Can you please tell me where I am mentioning a product I sell, as I see no mention of it and there will never be a direct naming of it? PS I never told you to criticize W, I told you to reprimand him for marketing a direct product, not undo my removal of his obvious CoI. Also all my "attacks" on him were amongst substantial & credible questions I asked of "The Engineer", of which he never bothered to address, given he obviously doesn't know jack about the field, other than to promote a direct product he his a stake in... ding, ding, ding the CoI. I have made so many edits & neutral improvements to the page, yet W has not reversed any other than the CoI I removed of his... further demonstrating he has nearly zero knowledge credibility within the field. You may see it as not engaging in a battle with him, but by "punishing" me for my tangential outbursts while completely ignoring my credible arguments, you've validated W's continued poor attitude & edits without justification or defensible reasons, which is exactly the reason I went to you in the first place! Borealdreams (talk) 02:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

VenomousConcept and varieties of English[edit]

Already marked resolved, and there is no request for admin tool use here (other discussions notwithstanding). LadyofShalott 01:55, 19 March 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 12 hours. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

A largish portion of User:VenomousConcept's edits are dedicated to changing varieties of English to to "proper English" without "stupid Americanisms"[53].

Explanations have included that a disease "was discovered by an Englishman" so "it's only right that proper English should be used" and that a "European battle" should be written in "correct English".

Previously claiming to understand our policy, and having been warned several times, maybe it's all a mistake. "The word is spelt incorrectly. How am I supposed to know that some particular misspelling is used by a bunch of retards in another part of the world who are incapable of using the English language correctly?" After all, can we expect editors to "sit down and learn all the misspellings, mispronunciations and misuses of grammar that are employed in another country just to keep you happy? I think not." There's more, of course.

As a silly bitch/cow (I'm a dog-cow! Crazy scientists these days) who has been invited to fuck off I have nothing more to do here. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

"Moof!", said Clarus -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

12 hours is quite generous as those diffs show that he fits in here about as well as pork at a passover seder. This is one of the reasons why I don't use the block tool. I would not trust myself to be too aggressive with it when it comes to crap like this. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Summer, it might amuse you to know that we have an article about the Dogcow. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Ahem, "Moof!", said Clarus -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
My apologies to the scientists of the world. I should have said, "I'm a dog-cow! Crazy Apple people circa 1983." - SummerPhD (talk) 04:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Maybe where Concept is from "Fuck off" is perfectly acceptable. Where I live, it means "fuck off". I've perused the Concept's edits a bit, and it's clear this is a long-term issue, and twelve hours is quite lenient, esp. given that they chose SummerPhD as a target for their venom. But here's what will happen: Concept will play nice after their block, and we can all live happily ever after. Or they don't (they again change spelling against guidelines or convention, call someone names, etc), in which case they'll be blocked for two weeks or more, possibly indefinitely. I'm sure Concept can understand my broken English. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
    • 5 years ago, I had someone point out to me that I was doing what VenomousConcept was doing. I responded by installing the Firefox dictionary switcher. I would then cycle through all the dictionaries (us, uk, au etc) to see which spelling convention was used in the article. If it was all mixed up I would use whichever variant came first. Example, if "color" was the first variant I encountered then "labour" would be changed to "labor" if it appeared later in the article. (unless it was the British political party) Had no problems after that. If I instead responded by saying "fuck off" then things would have gone a lot different for me. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
      • No doubt, Ron, and I'm in complete agreement with you about the lenience of a 12 hour block. IMHO, someone who responds with "fuck off," in addition to his other hostile comments, is not just another Someone Who Doesn't Quite Get What Wikipedia Is About. That person is a jerk, plain and simple, because there's nowhere in the civilized world where such language or deportment is considered the proper way to handle disputes. Ravenswing 04:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
    • This mysterious world where "fuck off" is a neutral comment is somewhere this bitchcow doesn't need to visit anytime soon. Anyway, hopefuly this thred/block is enuff of a wakeup call for VenimousConsept and well all walk off, hand-and-hand intwo the sunset toogether. ETA: Rats! I should have said something about behavior. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I've just come across this from the discussion of Stygiophobia (