Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive748

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

Noticeboard archives

User:Arimand[edit]

WP:DENY. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Blocked [1] by Tnxman307 via WP:CHILDPROTECT Dennis Brown © 16:57, 23 April 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.

'New' user. Self-identifies as a racist (and paedophile?), with a swastika infobox. All edits propagating racist material. Needs prompt ejecting as obvious troll, and probable sockpuppet. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Oversight of edits might also be advisable per WP:DENY. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd recommend an SPI check with our old friend Mikemikev as well.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
They're hiding behind proxies, but I've blocked them as an obvious troll. TNXMan 15:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand the basis for blocking User:Arimand. I am not troubled the User self-identifying as racist and pedophile. I think it is the User's edits that should matter. Looking over User:Arimand's edits I don't yet see sufficient cause for blocking. I think that blocking at this time is premature. Bus stop (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
This is sarcasm, right? ~Crazytales (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Please see WP:CHILDPROTECT. This is official policy. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I was not aware of WP:CHILDPROTECT. Thank you for linking to that. Bus stop (talk) 16:05, 23 April 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.

G7 question[edit]

Hi, does this article qualify for G7? Its author did blank the article, but the G7 paragraph technically says "provided that the only substantial content to the page and to the associated talk page was added by its author". The TP now has a discussion on it involving several other users. It Is Me Here t / c 22:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the speedy template and the "hang-on" template.--Rockfang (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
It looks like a fair amount of WP:COPYVIO from this site, which specifically states "Copyright ©2011. All Rights Reserved" at the bottom. Wouldn't that qualify it for G12? Torchiest talkedits 22:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
It still would have qualified for G7 (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Gheorghe Calciu-Dumitreasa rv over rv and refusal to follow wikipedia norms[edit]

An IP (IP range?) keeps editing the Gheorghe Calciu-Dumitreasa with an unabashed encomium and essay-like claims. Two users other than me have rv to the stable version, but the IP keeps returning with the same highly dubious content, that breaks every line of policy. The article in that version is festooned with (utterly unencyclopedic and even ungrammatical) first-person editorial comments ("As he was sitting having dinner with us you could see that he had no gums as they were probably removed by some malefic form of torture. He seemed so disinterested in food that one could sense he had barely any taste left in his mouth."; "We could see his chain marks as he was yawning although he never displayed it blatantly as he was wearing shirts as after many years they have tapered his wrist bones. Also his nails were clearly removed a few times as they were sloping up and down and of a different thickness from ordinary people."; "With him and Victor Runcan, the heavyweight US formation of erudite public speakers with moralizing sermon ends") Before you dismiss this as a content dispute, check out the persistent branding as vandalism, and the glaring WP:COI and claims that wikipedia should equate Facebook: "this is his community in VA we put same on Facebook we knew him personally", "If you only knew him a little let US post - we knew him a lot. He was terminal when he arrived here 25 years ago - he was given a church." - this also seems to imply that we are dealing with an unrelenting group of users determined to combat for their version of the article, and entirely unconcerned with wikipedia rules, formats etc. I have repeatedly informed the IP editor(s) about wikipedia content policies, most recently and completely here. Please curb this insanity. Dahn (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page for two weeks. There are nearly seventy edits by the IP. Please apply for longer protection at WP:RFPP if the problem continues when the two weeks have expired. -- Dianna (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Numerous vandalism and BLP violations, Need semi-protection now[edit]

Article protected. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:43, 24 April 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'm logging off soon and don't have time do explain. Please see this thread.[2] Can we get an admin to semi-protect it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for 1 week. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:49, 23 April 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.

What are legitimate grounds for a precipitate block for edit warring?[edit]

Consensus here is that it was a bad block. If you want desysoppings, you'll have to go to ArbCom, because we lowly admins don't have the power to do such things even if we thought it was warranted. 28bytes (talk) 03:42, 24 April 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 have to ask, as admin User:Tiptoety seemed to think that diffs to five edits made in two and a half months do, and blocked me (without any prior warning, or any input in the talk page discussions) accordingly - the block has of course been lifted. TenOfAllTrades summarises the diffs given as 'evidence' nicely: [3]

  1. 19 April - restored a critical comment about the product's nutritional value
  2. 11 April - undid a whitewash that deleted well-referenced mention of the company CEO's legal troubles related to a previous health drink
  3. 1 March - removed an unsourced description of a critic as a 'competitor'
  4. 27 February - removed the same unsourced description (this is the only revert which Andy repeated, and the only time Andy reverted twice within a seven-day period)
  5. 7 February - removed the addition of what amounted to an advertising blurb for a new product.
In the same period of time, Andy has posted five times to the article talk page, relating to the edits that he has made. Where is the fire that your block is putting out, Tiptoety? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This is in relation to our article on MonaVie a 'multi-level-marketing' company of dubious repute which promotes vastly-overpriced fruit juices for 'health and wellness' despite a complete lack of evidence for any meaningful benefits. I suggest that a look at the article history, and the talk page, will illustrate why this article is of concern to me, and to other editors (one of whom User:Rhode Island Red is still blocked, along with User:Ed.Valdez who was deleting sourced negative information from the article).

As I wrote on my talk page, it seems to me that this block is sufficiently contrary to established Wikipedia policy and procedures that I have to question the fitness of User:Tiptoety as an administrator. Or have I misunderstood policy to the extent that attempts to maintain NPOV, and requirements regarding reliable sourcing, in articles being 'spun' by multiple SPAs is to be understood as against policy? If so, Wikipedia has a serious problem.

At minimum, we need a clarification of policy here, and an explanation from User:Tiptoety as to how he/she came to make such a decision - Tiptoety's only response so far has been to post a rather dismissive (and factually incorrect) comment on my talk page: [4]. Contrary to the assertion therin, I had been engaged in talk-page discussions regarding the article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy, can you explain why, rather than use standard practices for dealing with an editor you believed to be disruptive, you (and others) simply continued to undo his changes (the same ones or different ones), over and over? Can you explain why, given that you've previously been blocked for edit warring and are clearly very much aware of the policy, and yet you continued to revert on MonaVie, you feel that Tiptoety should have had reason to believe yet another warning drawing your attention to the policy would have had any effect? These questions also apply to RhodeIslandRed and EdValdez, if they'd care to answer them. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I have the memory of a sieve. Could you point to one time you've dealt, before getting your precious tools, with a disruptive editor who was not a blatant vandal? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Can we please stay on topic - this isn't about User:Fluffernutter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
@ Fluffernutter: Can you explain why you consider any of my actions as contrary to policy? And, in answer to your question, if the problem had been a single editor, of course 'standard practices' may be effective - but how long do you expect it would take for another POV-pushing SPA to appear? Articles of this nature are inherently prone to systematic spinning by those with utter disregard for Wikipedia policy, and NPOV can only ever me maintained by watching the article itself: sadly, this sort of thing is a disheartening and thankless task. Maybe I should stop doing it, and leave the articles to the snake-oil salesmen... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Andy, from my point of view the entire recent history of the article has violated policy because editors seem to have mostly given up on talking, and have settled on just undoing each other repeatedly ("a series of back and forth reverts", to quote WP:EW). Multiple editors were involved in this, and I think Tiptoety was not out of left field to stop the behavior with blocks, though obviously it's debatable whether that turned out to be the best strategy.

As far as handling POV pushing, there's a couple ways to deal with that if it can be established that it's happening. ANI has recently started handing out discretionary sanctions on articles and topics, if I recall correctly, which means that if a case is made here that MonaVie has a long-term history of SPAs or POV pushing, the article could be placed under 1RR or problematic editors could be topic banned with much more ease than they currently are. ANI has also always been able to topic-ban or block individual editors if evidence can be presented of them misbehaving. Arbcom, obviously, has the same abilities. It would be extremely disappointing if you opted to stop editing the article because of POV pushing or other problems, and I encourage you to not do that. What I'm trying to communicate, actually, is that we do have the ability to handle problem editors. You don't have to do it all yourself (alone or among two or three of you) when we have so many processes that can - really can, I promise - help you address the root cause instead. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Fluffernutter's protestations seem to ring a bit hollow, given that he has made his own very similar reverts to the very same article over the years: [5], [6], [7], [8]. This seems to be very much a 'do as I say, not as I do' situation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. some statistics from the MonaVie article contributions history to ponder:
AndyTheGrump: article edits 11, talk page edits 15.
Fluffernutter: article edits 7, talk page edits 1.
I think that lectures on "editors [who] seem to have mostly given up on talking" coming from someone in that situation are somewhat questionable. Not that I had 'given up on talking' anyway, as the article talk page shows. Still, this is all rather off-topic anyway: I still want to hear from User:Tiptoety regarding the more important issue: his/her interpretation of policy, and why it is so far at odds with with other contributors and admins. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
NB: Fluffernutter's preferred pronouns are 'she/her/hers'. ~Crazytales (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Tiptoety seems to be relying on a very broad interpretation of the opening sentence of WP:3RR: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion." Even assuming an admin can block without warning a user who "repeatedly" reverts over a 2-month period, it doesn't address the caveat about resolving the disagreement by discussion, which, for the moment, I will take you at your word you did. In addition, given the outer boundaries of the policy that Tiptoety is invoking, I would think that a warning would precede a block. Finally, Tiptoety's statement that Andy has been blocked before and therefore he must know the rules, implying that a block isn't needed, is a bit sly as, again, this isn't your standard edit war, and many users, not just Andy, would be taken aback by such a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've unblocked both User:Rhode Island Red and User:Ed.Valdez following the discussion on Andy's TP. I'm not sure if any further admin action is required or not. SmartSE (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Technically yes, since the autoblocks were still in place. That issue is solved though. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
This was a massive breach of admin authority. You cant decide unilaterally on your own to block someone prer WP:IDONTLIKEIT with a word of community consensus. Should be outright WP:BOOMERANG...but then again ive seen that happen when an admin feels like doing so to no accountability. (a la HJMitchell on me). Its stilly to have permanent admins...should be elected rotationally to keep them accountable an don their toes. Many will very well get reelected but many others wont.Lihaas (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh my, term limits with a twist. Another in the line of if-an-admin-makes-a-mistake-kill-them.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • This is a serious issue as there are hundreds of articles about dubious companies, diploma mills, products, and similar SPA magnets. Yes, discussion is necessary and edit warring is bad, but the standard required by Tiptoety in this case is so unrealistic as to fail the laugh test. Would people please review the history at MonaVie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and comment on how they would like an admin to handle such a situation? I find it unacceptable that an admin should think it desirable to block an editor who has made three edits in the past two months with no warning that such high standards were expected (particularly when each of the three edits is good, and the editor made three good comments at the talk page in the same period). Are there some particular sanctions applying to this topic, or should good editors abandon trying to protect Wikipedia from SPA POV pushers? Johnuniq (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Note: Tiptoety has now posted on my talk page, first with a rather equivocal apology [9], and then, after I suggested that a response here would seem appropriate, a repeat of the apology, and a statement that he/she has "no interest in furthering the drama an AN/I". Frankly, I find this rather distainful dismissal of due process further grounds to question Tiptoety's qualifications to be an admin. A gross misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy like this needs more than half-hearted apologies, as Johnuniq suggests above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I can only second Johnuniq's comments. First off how can any of the three blocks handed out be viewed as anything but punitive? If it truly was a slow edit war (and the evidence for that is lacking) 24 hour blocks are not going to "prevent" anything. As has been shown discussion about the article was taking place on its talk page so the block did not cool anyone off or start a discussion where one wasn't going on. Next, I know that it is nice idea to have a "stable" version of an article but at its basic level Wikipedia is designed so that articles evolve and change over time, thus, the term "stable" is relative. When it comes to articles about politics (current politics anyway), religion and pseudo science experience has shown that it is unlikely that there will ever be a "stable" version. Even if an article has achieved some stability for a few months new SPA's and POV pushers will always arrive. In this case it looks like the admin culled through the edit history and then blocked those that had made changes over a period of weeks or months without thoroughly investigating what those edits were. If an admin is in the pursuit of a "stable" version of an article they should make sure that they have all of the facts at hand before making a decision to block anyone. That involves discussing things with the editors involved. They could then issue suggestions to the parties. Also, I don't see anything that states that uninvolved admins or editors can't start a "Request for Comment" or get a "Dispute Resolution" process underway. Either of those would be better than pulling the trigger and issuing punitive blocks. Blocks like this one can only have a chilling effect on the community at large and that will only embolden vandals, SPAs and POV pushers. MarnetteD | Talk 02:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh the drahma. An admin made a mistake. We all make mistakes. Even AndyTheGrump makes mistakes. The mistake was swiftly rectified. No harm to ATG. Tiptoety admitted the mistake and apologized. Regardless, ATG maintains full-blown vindictive mode, with repeated po-faced assertions that the mistake - and the choice not to participate in this dramafest - are "grounds for questioning" Tiptoety's "suitability as an administrator". Please. Get over yourself Andy. To be AndyTheMagnanimous might even make you feel good! Writegeist (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

So admins issuing precipitous drive-by blocks and then apologising (less than enthusiastically) afterwards when called to account by multiple contributors isn't an issue for ANI? What the heck is this noticeboard for then? Or are admins supposed to get a free pass? As for 'No harm to ATG', ignoring the fact that I've had to waste hours sorting this mess out when I could have been doing something more useful, other contributors were also blocked. More to the point though Tiptoety still seems to think that this was some sort of 'judgement call', whereas almost everyone else seems to think otherwise. So yes, I question Tiptoety's "suitability as an administrator" - as I (and any other Wikipedia contributor) is entitled to, particularly when they seem to be so clueless about policy, and so dismissive of requests to adequately explain themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Dismissing Andy's report in these terms implies that the other editors who have commented here and elsewhere are misguided and that their comments need no consideration. A quick resolution would start with a consensus that the blocks were wildly wrong (not just a "mistake")—any good editor would have done what Andy did. Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Hm. You're missing the point: Tiptoety doesn't have to give a shit. Andy should be grateful to have received an apology; if that isn't enough, Andy should just be re-blocked for his ungratefulness. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, he should be grateful that an administrator would give even a weaselly, backhanded apology to a lowly commoner. If that peasant doesn't like it, he should be thrown back to the pillory for such insolent insubordination. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
At the risk of contributing to "the drahma" (something I cannot often be accused of), I'll weigh in to agree with Johnuniq 100%. As far as I can tell, Andy wasn't even close to edit warring. Judging from the five diffs at the top of the thread, what he was doing was making fully constructive, highly clueful edits. While admins, like the rest of us, do make mistakes and hardly need to prostrate themselves in shame afterward, some of the comments I'm seeing in this thread appear dismissive of the gravity of the mistake. Aside from the block's being unjustified on edit warring grounds, it was also procedurally bad because there was no apparent reason to believe it would prevent disruption. It certainly gives me pause, anyway, and makes me wonder if my lack of blocks to date is due less to good behavior and more to some sort of incredible luck. Or maybe I have a guardian angel. Or something. Rivertorch (talk) 05:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
We all make mistakes, of course. But when a rollbacker makes a mistake rollback is taken away. When an administrator makes a mistake (and this was a big one) the usual suspects turn out to defend it. The bottom line is that Tiptoey has shown himself to be an incompetent administrator and should be desysoped. Malleus Fatuorum 06:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, speaking of drahma . . . You lost me there. While the mistake was a serious one, I cannot see that it constitutes evidence of incompetence. In most cases we should be forgiven for our big mistakes as well as our small ones. I draw a distinction, however, between forgiving those who make mistakes and treating the victims of those mistakes in a casually dismissive manner. Rivertorch (talk) 06:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Let me put it a little more bluntly for you then. It wasn't a mistake, it was evidence of incompetence. The only other explanation is dishonesty, but I'll leave that for others to decide. Either way, do we really need incompetent/dishonest administrators? Malleus Fatuorum 06:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Yep, this is why I avoid ANI. My better nature is screaming at me to unwatchlist this and go elsewhere, but the evil demon within goads me to respond just once more. You're making a very serious allegation that cannot possibly be documented by citing only one incident. Suggesting that another editor is incompetent (or, far worse, dishonest) without providing proper substantiation seems to me just about as reckless and callous as blocking someone without cause or making light of such a block. There are human beings behind these usernames, and they deserve better than that. Rivertorch (talk) 06:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Apparently, you've never encountered Malleus before. This is his normal MO. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
You lot may be afraid to call a spade a fucking shovel, but I'm not. Malleus Fatuorum 18:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I dare say I do disagree with the rollback comparison. "when a rollbacker makes a mistake rollback is taken away" I've made mistakes a couple of times with rollback, a misclick and a misread of something, and I still have rollback. I agree that rights should be taken away from people who deliberately and/or consistently misuse them, but if they're taken away for one mistake, no one will ever have any rights whatsoever (perhaps that'd be a good thing, heh). If Tiptoety hadn't apologised and admitted they were in error, I'd think differently. Everyone makes mistakes. Hard pushed to find an admin who hasn't. OohBunnies! Leave a message 18:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not "afraid" of anything. I disagree with you, and find your "fuck the police" attitude towards admins tiresome. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

───────────────────────── This incident leads to a larger issue. What do we do about SPA POV pushers? Our articles on or relating to fringe theories are constantly beset by such editors, and admins don't do anything to help us. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

"What do we do about SPA POV pushers?" Let me know when you find out.[10] Tom Harrison Talk 15:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Leave them a note explaining why their edits are problematic. If they carry on bring them here (or somewhere else). If you can show they've been warned and then they carried on regardless, then that's a reason to block. You're right though that admins should help editors who are willing to defend our articles against SPA POV pushers and give them a little leeway in terms of 3RR/civility. The project needs more editors who will stand up against them, rather than more POV pushers. SmartSE (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please close this? Andy was blocked. He was unblocked because the block was unwarranted. He received an apology from the blocking admin, although it wasn't apparently as abject as Andy felt it should have been. After that, the discussion devolved into an argument of how much blood we should draw from the blocking admin to see if he has an enzyme for incompetence and should therefore be euthanized.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please not close this. As I made quite clear at the start, and others have subsequently also suggested, there are issues other than the inappropriate behaviour of a single admin being discussed here: in particular, we need to clarify what the situation is when having to revert POV-pushing SPAs who refuse to comply with policy (and often refuse to communicate at all). If editors have to risk being blocked for 'edit-warring' due to well-intentioned (and seemingly policy compliant) actions taken out to preserve NPOV in contentious/fringe articles, Wikipedia will have a serious problem keeping such articles policy-compliant. Though BTW, I'd also like some clarification on whether an admin, when asked to explain their actions at ANI declines to do so: per WP:ADMINACCT: "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed". I feel that a mere apology on a talk page (of only one of the persons blocked) falls well short of this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm really sympathetic to you on this one, Andy: editors who try to ensure our articles comply with WP:NPOV and who maintain their quality against the onslaught of accounts who are here for one reason (accounts who generally don't know or care about WP:BRD) should get some support from the admin corps, and that support is woefully inconsistent. Sometimes such editors get prompt and helpful responses from admins, sometimes – as in your case – they get blocked for insisting that BRD be followed. Is it possible to sort out that inconsistency at AN/I? Probably not. Would an RfC help? Maybe. 28bytes (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Do RFCs ever sort out anything? The only way to sort this out is to sanction administrators like Tiptoey who block those trying to protect articles, under the guise of edit warring. Malleus Fatuorum 19:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, there are two issues, as I see it: I can't imagine there will be much appetite for sanctioning an admin whose first response to being challenged is "It appears I have made a mistake, and I apologize." At least I don't have an appetite for it, others may. The broader issue is, when someone with either an axe to grind against an article subject or an interest in whitewashing legitimate, reliably sourced criticism repeatedly ignores the bold-revert-discuss cycle and just re-inserts their changes without consensus, how can editors stop that without making them vulnerable to edit-warring blocks themselves? Perhaps either promoting BRD to a policy, or incorporating stronger language into the edit-warring policy that makes it explicit that bold-revert-bold is the "official" start of an edit war (analogous to the language used in WP:WHEEL: "Do not repeat a reversed administrative actionedit when you know that another administratoreditor opposes it. Do not continue a chain of administrative reversalsreverts without discussion. Resolve admin disputes by discussing.") Or perhaps some other approach. An RfC may not solve it but I think the odds are greater than trying to solve it here, especially when it's tied to a specific admin action. 28bytes (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't appear to have been a mistake, it was a mistake, and a bad one, which is the issue that's being swept under the carpet here. Malleus Fatuorum 21:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
It's not "swept under the carpet," it's "this isn't enough to block/desysop him for." — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think codifying BRD would really help much. In my experience, once we get Edit-Revert-Edit-Revert, the reverting party needs to stop. Post to the talk page, post to the inserting editor's talk page, try to get a dialog going. If the edit is inserted again, without discussion, it's time to hit AIV or ask an admin familiar with the page to intervene. The exception being blatant vandalism on BLP pages. In that case, an Edit-Revert-Edit should be taken straight to AIV. Either way, repeatedly reverting the edit is just asking for trouble. What looks like clear vandalism to one person may actually be a legitimate edit to an uninvolved party.
I honestly find the WP:DR system rather ineffectual in these situations, especially RfCs. The latter tends to just drag on with no resolution until one side gives up out of frustration, or starts inserting the material again. I'm just not sure what we could effectively replace DR with outside granting admins more broad leeway to block (which would just make things more tense than they are now). — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
AIV? AIV is completely the wrong place to go. POV pushing isn't vandalism. It can be equally disruptive, but it's different. It's not in the scope of AIV at all. I don't know what experience you've had, but having whoever reverts need to stop results in an easy way to game the system and push disruptive text in. Guideline or not, WP:BRD provides a base point. As you noted, DR is often ineffective. If we're set to punish those that revert, AndyTheGrump is right in saying the articles will go to "snake-oil salesmen" or the equivalent in whatever the dispute is. CMD (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
As a comment, an admin who has made one mistake, unless it's absolutely jumping the shark, shouldn't be subject to desysopping; I suspect all of our admins can pass the Turing test and are, therefore, not expected to be perfect. If there was a pattern of administorial misbehavior, then perhaps, but that does not seem to be the case here. Consensus is it was a bad block, the admin involved apologised (where they apologised is irrelevant; they apologised clearly in a place where the person being apologised to clearly would see it, insisting they apologise more elsewhere is just hauling to the pillory), and the heat:light ratio here is threatening to rise. {{Trout}} the admin in question and close. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
All mistakes are not equal; I note that you make no distinction in that respect. There's an absurd assumption here that you can just reverse a bad block and no harm done. Let me assure you that's very far from the truth. Malleus Fatuorum 22:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

There seem to be several misunderstandings above, regarding what happened, and when. Firstly, The Hand That Feeds You states that "repeatedly reverting the edit is just asking for trouble". As the diffs show, it wad different material that was being reverted, except for a single case. It is also untrue to suggest that we are referring to "an admin whose first response to being challenged [was] 'It appears I have made a mistake, and I apologize'". Tiptoety's first response was to attempt to justify the block by referring to my actions as edit-warring, falsely suggesting that I had failed to try to resolve the issue through discussion. It was only when I raised the matter here that Tiptoety apologised: and only to me - no apology to the others blocked, and no apology for the trouble this ridiculous set of blocks had caused others to sort out. Tiptoety's refusal to discuss the issue here, combined with an editing pattern I find rather troubling in its limited scope, suggests to me that we do a problem with an out-of-touch admin, and/or a clear misunderstanding as to how we should be dealing with POV-pushing SPAs who are unwilling to work within policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

No one is claiming that because Tiptoety made a mistake their admin bit should be removed. There are three issues (it's #1 and #2 which call into question Tiptoety's suitability as an admin):

  1. Tiptoety's apology was one of those dismissive "...correct my mistakes if I make them. It appears I have made a mistake, and I apologize" apologies which superficially ticks the CIVIL box but which reveals that there has been no thought at all about the matter.
  2. Tiptoety has declined to participate in a very reasonable ANI discussion. There is no need for a protracted back-and-forth, just one clear statement on the underlying issue.
  3. What are good editors to do when faced with POV-pushing SPAs? The above suggestion that "it's time to hit AIV or ask an admin familiar with the page to intervene" is totally unhelpful. The AIV suggestion is a grave misunderstanding of the purpose of AIV (read the box at the top), and there is no mechanism to find an admin familiar with the page. Also it is not reasonable that those defending the encycopedia should spend half an hour writing reports for every one-minute addition of unsuitable content (of course some time on talk is necessary, but it is not reasonable to require a lengthy analysis for every edit).

Johnuniq (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree, that wasn't an apology worthy of its name from Tiptoety. It was a very poor triple block all reverted on first inspection by other administrators and, 3, yes, I agree such actions degrade users ability to defend NPOV edits - Andy's edits as displayed by Toat were in no way blockable - I wondered , who asked him to do it? was there any off wiki requests, or on that chat log irc thing, it was hard to see why he did it but at least this exposure will stop him doing it again in future - I have on multiple occasions when attempted to apply policy to edits a COI SPA has been just reverting and failing to discuss had to just say, what the hell let them add whatever they want rather than get blocked.Youreallycan 23:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
From WP:EDITWAR:
An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion. Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned.
To answer the original question, anyone who participates in an edit war can be blocked per policy. The admin in question has already apologized (even though he may have been right per policy), and while the sincerity of said apology has been called into question (those doing so may want to read WP:SORRY), the fact remains that one was given. My suggestion for dealing with the POV pushing that resulted in the original edit war is to revert obviously dubious material and if said behavior continues the user(s) involved should be reported for WP:3RR violations or general disruptive editing. This doesn't even require a noticeboard post, it can be pinged to any online admin. N419BH 00:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
He wasn't right on policy, and there was no edit war. I find this defence of a clear abuse of power to be most unsavoury. Malleus Fatuorum 00:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, its wiki lawyering nonsense. Ping ! - Who was it that asked Tiptoety to look at the article and was that user involved in editing the article, I have asked User_talk:Fluffernutter#Question if it was him - its incredulous that Tiptoety wandered by and blocked three users for this. Youreallycan 00:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I am not commenting on the merits of this case. The thread is so long WP:TLDR that no light will come out of it. I have answered the original question as posed in the section title of when a block may be issued for edit warring and am attempting to provide a path to a resolution. I am not going to spend a half hour or more reading this thread and an additional two hours investigating the exact merits of the case, and I suspect neither is anyone else who is not already involved. Note that I said the admin in question "may" have been right, not that he actually was. If the apology is to be believed (and it is my opinion that it should be) then the admin has admitted he made a mistake and there is nothing further to do here because there is nothing further that can be done. If we expected perfection from our admins and desysopped for a single mistake then we would have none, because as humans we all make mistakes. If the parties here feel and can provide evidence for a pattern of poor use/misuse of the tools the proper place for such discussion is the talk page of the admin in question first, WP:RFC second, and WP:ARBCOM third. It is my understanding that the first step may have already been taken, and if it has and the parties feel the issue is not resolved I would encourage them to consider filing a RFC if they believe such behavior was particularly egregious and part of a pattern of disruptive/misuse of the tools. If it wasn't and was merely a mistake, then I would suggest everyone move on. N419BH 00:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Wow, you say its too long and yet you come from nowhere, edit history to post two long posts - welcome back - what exactly is your involvement here in this topic? - Youreallycan 00:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest that you move on N419BH, as you have admitted to having no interest in looking at the facts of this case. Malleus Fatuorum 00:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - There is clearly more to this than meets the eye - the focus should remain on the administrators actions, the weakness of policy to protect experienced good faith users from such poor administration is a topic for another location. Youreallycan 00:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Focus on admin actions: "Admin are free to act according to their personal judgement. They are accountable to none." Close this thread now. Moving on. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
You are mistaken and your last post here was also completely mistaken, All users are accountable here, Youreallycan 01:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Some administrators clearly do believe that they're accountable to none, but they're very much mistaken. Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Admins are accountable to the community and are bound by policy. If you feel Tiptoey has lost the confidence of the community to utilize his tools in compliance with policy file a WP:RFC/U. He's not going to get desysopped via an ANI thread. N419BH 00:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
There is no honesty here. An RFC would achieve nothing, as editors like you would once again turn out to support this admin without any interest in the facts. Malleus Fatuorum 01:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
If you are unwilling to contribute to a thread which explains what happens on wikipedia you can go back to cloud cuckoo land. Admins can do whatever they want. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
No, they can't. If you all wish to continue to complain feel free to do so. You are not going to accomplish anything here. I do not say that as a matter of insult I say it as a matter of fact. I mean no disrespect or ill will toward any of you. If you wish to hold Tiptoey accountable file a WP:RFC/U and see what happens. If this is a single incident and you know nothing will come out of a RFC/U I would suggest dropping the stick. N419BH 01:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
There are unresolved issues regarding this issue and User Tipotoety should rather come and answer them -Please don't close the discussion down with demeaning yada yada comments Youreallycan 01:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Tiptoey has indicated that he will not enter this discussion; which is completely within his choice to do so. I would suggest asking him regarding the specific issues on his talk page. If he doesn't answer that's also within his choice but I would imagine if you ask him in a cordial and polite manner he will answer you. N419BH 01:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
No, he doesn't give a shit and he doesn't have to. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I think that Andy, Malleus, and Youreallycan are "right" here (which is starting to happen frighteningly often, recently). All the ducking and hiding, excuses, and blame shifting (nevermind what appears to be a sockpuppet of someone), are certainly not putting the administrator and his friends in a good light here.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Two comments, one with my checkuser hat on, and one off, from reading this thread and doing my own digging. First, with it off, the block of AndyTheGrump and Rhode Island Red are, IMO, bad decisions that have properly been reversed. Second, with it on, the two POV-pushing accounts are socks confirmed by checkuser. AS such Ive blocked Ed.Valdez and YorbaLindaOCMan indefinitely. Courcelles 01:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
    Too little too late. Will AndyTheGrump's block be erased from his log? No, of course it won't. Will a record of Tiptoey's bad block be added to his log? No, of course it won't. Malleus Fatuorum 02:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
    What's a bit surprising/concerning is that Tiptoety is also a CU - shouldn't they have realised the duck like nature of these socks and checked before blocking anyone? SmartSE (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for AN/I resolution 0001: "The Wikipedia community deplores User:Tiptoety's block of AndyTheGrump. This block violated Wikipedia's blocking policies. Further violations of Wikipedia's blocking policies will lead to a referral to ArbCom with the recommendation of desysopping." Count Iblis (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Before commenting on the merits of the proposal, I'd suggest that mention of the block of Rhode Island Red (also trying to maintain NPOV) should be given, and I'm not sure that I'm convinced that on the evidence that Tiptoey had, the block of Ed.Valdez was actually merited, without at least some effort to engage in prior dialogue: he(she?) was at least posting on the talk page. A block for sockpuppetry is another matter, but at the time, this wasn't a consideration. As for the 'resolution' it seems to me that what is actually most problematic wasn't the blocks themselves - which though clearly wrong in at least two cases, might be put down to an error, but the complete failure to engage in any dialogue before. From looking at Tiptoety's edit history, he/she seems to be almost exclusively involved in reverting and warning IPs engaging in simple vandalism/test edits etc, and in checkuser/sockpuppet issues. Less than 1% of Tiptoey's edits are on article talk pages, [11] which suggests to me a reluctance to actually engage on substantive issues regarding article content - less than ideal for an admin, I'd have thought. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
why? "Every admin can do whatever the fuck they want until some resolution is passed reminding them to keep the promises they made?" Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I must've missed something. Who (or what) the hell are you quoting? Face-confused.svg
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
It's simply rewording the proposed "resolution" into plainspeak. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Only the ArbCom can pass resolutions under Chapter 7, but we can refer cases to the ArbCom based on previous conduct. Count Iblis (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Edit warring → Is there a reason why we should not trash this entire policy (given that it has been declared that an RFC will clearly not resolve anything and that the entire policy is unenforceable)? --MuZemike 07:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to provide diffs regarding this supposed 'edit warring'. Nobody else has... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
That's my entire point. If wiki-politics is going to decide what is or is not edit warring, then why have a policy in the first place? --MuZemike 07:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I've got a better idea. Strip Tiptoey of their admin privs unceremoniously after all of their service, and transfer those privs jointly, de facto-style, to Malleus and Andy. We lose one admin, but gain two, just like that! No RfA or anything. Because: they know better. They will never make a similar mistake. And if they did; they'd be extra "forgiving". I just know it. Doc talk 07:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I've got an even better idea. Read the discussion. Look at the evidence. And then make a meaningful contribution. And for the record, I have no wish to become an admin. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I've got an even even better idea. Drop the WP:STICK. You aren't going to get him desysopped here. If you really feel that wronged, file a WP:RFC/U. N419BH 07:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
And a better idea still: Fuck off go away and troll elsewhere, whoever's sockpuppet you are. I'm not trying to get anyone 'desysopped', I'm trying to get a serious problem at least looked at by contributors (admins or otherwise) who actually consider Wikipedia article content more important than the vacuous dramas of ANI and the rest. A POV-pushing sockpuppet was attempting to spin an article in favour of a bunch of dubious characters promoting a 'multi-level-marketing' scheme based on selling vastly-overpriced fruit juice as a cure for anything and everything. For my pains, I got blocked from editing. Do you think this was a good thing, or a bad thing? Unless you have something to say regarding this I don't give a toss what you think - Wikipedia can manage well enough without the 'contributions' of those who seem to think that this is some sort of juvenile role-playing game. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
You're not trying to get Tiptoey desysopped? Good. You've made more than enough comments regarding their ability as an admin: do I need to spell it out for you? Perhaps not trashing them here, and moving along, would show more good faith in regards to that editor. RfC/U is down the street. Sticking to the issue would probably be better than asking for heads to roll. Doc talk 08:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
With over 8,000 total contributions and two good articles, I am no one's sockpuppet, and no troll either. I have been busy in real life for the past several months, and noticed this thread and attempted to inject some advice into it after logging in to make a couple edits on an article I pretty much wrote the present form of. Several respected editors, admins, and a checkuser have given you roughly the same advice. You're not going to get anything accomplished here. I am sorry if you do not like it but you're not going to get anything else out of this thread. Policy has been explained, the admin has given an explanation and an apology. What more do you desire? N419BH 08:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
What else do I desire? That people who can't be bothered to look at the evidence and the prior discussions keep their opinions to themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Small-browser Break[edit]

I'm sorry, but everyone should inhale deeply. Andy started this discussion to open a dialogue and help find a solution to his problem. This whole thing has turned into a mosh pit: It's loud, painful, and extremely hard to pay attention. There are plenty of editors who have been making positive contributions to this discussion, but there are others who are coming in and making pointless entries. At this point, I agree with N419BH; an RfC/U is the best course of action, and then escalate from there if needed. This discussion is starting to degrade, and from the looks of it, a solution will probably not appear here. Ishdarian 08:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

That's to be expected. It's ANI. But let's see the likely outcomes here:
  1. Nothing. We haven't the power at ANI to formally rebuke an editor for messing up; a time-limited block would be pointless and punitive; and the editor has already apologised.
  2. Involuntary desysopping. We can't actually do that either, it would be wildly OTT for a one-off of relatively limited damage (the block, wrong as it was, was reversed in two hours) and there's no precedent for it, but the usual ANI dramamongers are calling for it.
  3. Voluntary desysopping. After Fastily's retirement, maybe folk think that hounding admins into retirement on ANI is a worthwhile tactic. We probably want to do everything possible not to encourage this.
The is pretty much unanimous consensus that Tiptoey screwed up here, that there are problems with that article which require a good deal of judgement when handing out blocks, and that Andy didn't do anything wrong regarding that article. He's been unblocked. There is no longer any immediate need for further administrative action here, and ANI is absolutely the last place that a proper analysis of how to prevent this happening again should take place. So I don't see that there's any point in keeping this open longer. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The one thing about this that bothers me is the plain acknowledgement that pretty much unanimous consensus that Tiptoey screwed up here, and the attitude is basically: "oh well, hopefully he won't make any more mistakes". This person is entrusted with quite a bit of responsibility, and all of this certainly destroys any trust that I have in him. Arbcom is most certainly not going to do anything about this, since he's (heavily) associated with them. The completely dismissive attitude that Tiptoey has is completely understandable here, considering all of the protection that he obviously has. So, is this guy protected, and untouchable?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Tiptoey is not untouchable. We can make the "oh well, hopefully he won't make any more mistakes" a bit more formal as the official closure of this thread. Then if this happens again, we can go to ArbCom, point to this discussion and the new incident. Then 1 + 1 = desysopping by ArbCom. ArbCom won't protect anyone when presented with a clear cut case, that would undermine their credibility and may lead to ArbCom being abolished (obviously, if many editors and Admins get fed up with ArbCom, ArbCom cannot exert its authority on this project). Count Iblis (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
This seems like empty rhetoric. I've already outlined what we could do here. In reality, the "do nothing" option carries a significant amount of baggage in terms of grudges community memory, and if screwups occur in future this will inevitably be taken into account. We don't really have any "slap on the wrist" remedies of any formality below ArbCom. We've gone without such for a decade. ANI is not the place to discuss introducing them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

IRC[edit]

I've been informed that this block germinated from an IRC discussion. Is that accurate? Can we get logs, please? Hipocrite (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

? So somebody invoked the sneaky "off the record old pals act" to consider administrative action which turned out to be a travesty of a decision to block a good faith editor? Block them both for the same time that ATG was blocked so that their record is tarred to the same degree. Shameful. Leaky Caldron 11:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Worrying indeed. How were you 'informed'? SmartSE (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
User talk:Fluffernutter#Question - there is no diff on wiki. - Youreallycan 14:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
This puts the whole thing in an entirely different light. Given that Fluffernutter (who had previously edited the article - reverting POV-pushing - but had at no point attempted to engage in the ongoing talk-page discussions) not only instigated the block, but then chose to repeat the false assertions regarding edit-warring first on my talk page, and then in this discussion, without making her prior involvement clear, I have to call for the scope of this discussion to be extended to Fluffernutter's bad-faith actions, which clearly precipitated the affair, and have led to much of the subsequent discord. Regardless of the merits of Tiptoety as an admin, Wikipedia clearly doesn't need self-serving shit-stirrers like Fluffernutter. Or if it does, it can do without me, and hand over article content to the SPAs, magic teapot salesmen, and bleach-gluggers. Seth Finkelstein, in a somewhat toxic depiction of Wikipedia in The Guardian, once described it as "a poorly-run bureaucracy with the group dynamics of a cult". [12] On the evidence presented here, he was right... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes - a user that had only reverted and not attempted discussion or posted to the article talkpage (User:Fluffernutter asked another admin off wiki to take action against users that had done all the things that User:Fluffernutter had not. The admin then took action and almost unanimous is that action was badly wrong (all reverted by other admins)- what a pile of trash this place is sometimes - the admin (User:Tiptoety) couldn't even apologize without being 'upity'. - and this is all we know ... what relating went on between them that encouraged User:Tiptoety to make this poor judgment, we don't know. .. personally, imo - they are both very poor administrators and I didn't support either of them at RFA and I still don't, and for such disruption as this, I support removing the bit from both of them. Good faith users need to know that they will not be abused by such poor administration using off wiki requests as this sorry episode. Youreallycan 15:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I've responded on my talk page and I would ask that people please stop conflating "asked for another admin to look at the article" and "ordered a henchman to do exactly what I wanted so I could pull the strings and secretly take over Wikipedia." One of those happened; the other didn't. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
You should do your business on wiki then - In that aspect you failed completely. What admin action did you think was required then, blocking of the sockpuppets ?- Why didn't you attempt any on wiki or on talkpage discussion? - Youreallycan 16:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
All he did was ping an uninvolved admin to look at the issue. This is perfectly normal and IRC is probably the fastest way to find an admin. That's why the Admin channel exists on IRC in the first place. N419BH 16:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
It was an editorial issue, there was no urgency. Leaky Caldron 16:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Never said there was. He pinged an admin to look into it. The admin who did utilized their judgement and blocked three people. Two of those people, in hindsight, shouldn't have been blocked. They were unblocked and the admin offered his apologies. Said apologies were rejected and now we have this dramafest at ANI and on ATG's talkpage. N419BH 16:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
@N419 "the fastest way to find an admin." you said. Sounds like urgency to me. Leaky Caldron 17:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
@User:N419BH - Your intense involvement out of nowhere editing is inexplicable imo - others have questioned in this thread, who are you a sock of - are you related to User:Fluffernutter in any way, are you a sock-puppet of User:Russavia ? Youreallycan 16:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • - Why should an admin that is involved in editing (only reverts) the article but has not made a single attempt to discuss the issue on wiki or on the talkpage ask another admin off wiki to have a look and take action? - Youreallycan 16:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't see a "non-editorial only" restriction in point two of meta:IRC/wikipedia-en-admins/Guidelines. The channel is allowed for open requests to review actions or situations on-wiki. I also don't see Tiptoety claiming off-wiki consensus as a grounds for the block. He took full responsibility for his actions and did not claim to be representing a decision made off-wiki. More specifically, it was Fluff's choice to ask anywhere he desired for an independent review. Talk page, IRC, email, WikiReview, etc. MBisanz talk 16:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • One of the primary issues is that User:Fluffernutter's off wiki IRCAdmin request was his first and only attempt at anything other that reverting - that is not how its supposed to work - the resulting administrative action by the responder User:Tiptoety was below the standard required of an administrator - Youreallycan 16:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Why? As I've said, I don't see a specific ordering of "You must post on the talk page before you can request a review privately" in any guideline or description, but I haven't read them all in exhaustive detail. MBisanz talk 17:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Dude, your defending the indefensible - you go to the talkpage if you have issues - its the primary good faith location - in this case it didn't happen at all - You are defending a user (User:Fluffernutter) whose only input on wiki was to revert - no discussion in any way at all and whose actions resulting in this disruption. - Youreallycan 17:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm defending the ability to ask for an independent review in any broad-based forum. Just because something is the primary means to do it does not mean other means are unacceptable. If it was unacceptable, there would be a specific page describing talk page primacy and explaining how and when to seek other forums (Like noticeboards, listservs, IRC, etc.) MBisanz talk 17:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Bollocks. What the hell are article talk pages supposed to be for then? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • See here. They are one of at least three options for editors wishing to discuss an article. MBisanz talk 17:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • IRC and email should be considered after things already seem to not be going anywhere on the talk page. If it was done in this case instead of engaging the other involved editor(s) first, I have to agree with Leaky Cauldron at the top of this section, who refers to this as an "off the record old pals act". That is precisely what this looks like. Equazcion (talk) 17:21, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)
  • They should, but I don't see a rule saying they must. It's like the difference between getting a rename and abandoning an old account. You should get a rename, but it isn't prohibited that you just register a new account. MBisanz talk 17:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Just out of curiosity, if we are going to regard off-Wiki communications as valid here, how are we going to prove that there wasn't any discussion going on where an 'edit-war' is being alleged? (Not that this is relevant in this case, considering the fact that the discussion was going on on the talk page). AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • If you mean, how will we know of the neutrality of the off-Wiki communication, then by the declarations of the participating parties, other parties present, past records, etc. MBisanz talk 17:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • So where are the 'declarations' regarding this particular bogus block then? I've not seen any? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • That isn't a 'declaration', it is self-serving spin - and repeats the lie that I was involved in edit-warring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) There doesn't need to be rule expressly prohibiting this in order to question the action. We examine these things on a case-by-case basis. I'm glad there's no rule for it, and I also think in this case it was inappropriate. Equazcion (talk) 17:29, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Here's a crazy idea - why not log the IRC channels so when these types of things happen, at least the harmed parties can see what was said and who was involved. I'm sure the knowledge that there are logs will improve the tone and general behaviour there. I think the last time this was suggested, there were threats to indef block anyone who posted IRC logs on-wiki, but perhaps people have matured since then... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Editors have been threatened with physical violence for suggesting that IRC be logged.[13] I don't think there's a lot of maturity in those parts. Skinwalker (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy, I understand that you are royally pissed at being blocked, and the consensus is supportive of the notion that the block was flawed. (I don't know whether that helps to mollify, or adds fuel to the fire.) You've received an apology, which was both belated, and perfunctory. You've stated, I think, that you aren't looking for a desysop. Can you identify what you would describe as a satisfactory outcome?

As a mild tangent, I glanced at your block log, and it looks long, but I think appearances are deceiving. I suspect the community is not disposed to expunging block records, but this looks like a good example where it may be warranted.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

What I'd like to see is Tiptoety and Fluffernutter complying with WP:ADMINACCT: "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed". And doing it here, with full disclosure of what exactly was said, and what actions either of them took before the block was made. Did Fluffernutter check the talk page history before contacting Tiptoety? Did Tiptoety check it? Only when we know what happened can we decide whether any further action is required - as I've said before, Tiptoety's edit record seems to suggest a reluctance to engage in talk page dialogue, which may indicate that he/she would be unwise to engage in admin actions beyond his/her usual fields: immediate reverts and warnings, checkuser matters etc, without taking a little more care. Fluffernutter needs likewise to accept that a more honest approach over this issue might have prevented much of the acrimony - and ensure in future to make clear any prior involvement in issues she is commenting on: we really need more transparency here. There is an ongoing discussion regarding clarifying/revising Wikipedia:Edit warring policy (see Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#slow burn edit warring and lack of warnings), which should address the matter, and hopefully, make this sort of thing less likely to arise again. And yes, I'd like the block struck from the record - particularly as some admins apparently seem to think that the existence of one block is sufficient reason to impose another. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Without understanding precisely how it would work, I would oppose expungement of blocks. Such a thing would be contrary to the practice of documenting just about everything we do and everything we undo. That said, at the moment, Andy's unblock has this comment: "General concensus seems to be that a block was not warranted". I would favor something more official, some agreed-upon designation for an unjustified block such that it would not only be clear (the comment is kind of mild) that the block was unjustified but also that policy prohibits it from being used against the editor for any purpose.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

So, in summary, this is yet another IRC failure, where one IRC bud asked another IRC bud to block a guy for him and he did it? Why are the buds still admins, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 10:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Hipocrite, can you just fucking stop wailing about IRC? 50.22.206.179 (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Do you mind logging in? Hipocrite (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not the IP, but I will echo the IP's request. If you'd bother to actually read what Fluffernutter wrote, she said she just asked for review and didn't give directives for what to do. When you're an admin, this happens all the time; look at my talkpage for the number of instances I've been asked to look at Indian caste articles. That it happened on IRC (which incidentally, I really only am using for one very specific purpose, and have no intention of using it once that's fulfilled) doesn't change anything except the venue. Or is your insistence because you're running out of glue? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
It would be a deadhorse if bad blocks and bad ideas didn't keep emanating from the IRCbuds month after month after month without any accountability. Why should I believe Fluffernutter, exactly, given that I have approximately zero trust from him related to the last IRCbud issue, where one of the buds threatened to make me breath through a straw for logging? Trust, but verify. Where are the logs, like the logs that exist of your talk page? They're kept secret, because IRCbuds like those taking action here would be disinfected by sunlight. Hipocrite (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
If you have an issue with the block (or in other cases deletions, protections, edits, etc.), then it is irrelevant whether or not it was discussed on IRC. The admin is always accountable for their actions, regardless of off-wiki communications - we all know that. If it was a bad block, it was a bad block. If it was a good block, it was a good block. IRC or any off-wiki communication has no effect on that, ever. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
"The admin is always accountable for their actions". Really - it doesn't look like it in this case. Regardless of where the communication took place, we still have had no proper explanation of what occurred, and Fluffernutter's actions in instigating the problem, but not even acknowledging this when trying to justify it (by repeating the same false claims first on my talk page, and then here). I am having second thoughts about whether desysoping might be worth looking at after all, given Fluffernutter's continuing refusal to explain her actions and justify them, per WP:ADMINACCT. Or are admins actually free to ignore policy when it suits their own personal interest? Her refusal to adequately explain how the events occurred is a violation of policy, beyond question, as was her non-disclosure of prior involvement when commenting on events. Why should anyone have any confidence in such an admin? I certainly don't... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
As someone who's normally satisfied by an action when I "flutternut" at the end, I must agree that going to IRC was a sub-optimal path to take. While there's some spirited shuck-and-jive to defend IRC above, it's feeble. Use on-wiki first: Nothing on the article talk page is a bad look, using IRC instead of ANI is a bad look. Please note that the emphasis is on "look," since we can't know what actually took place on IRC. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

3RR rules[edit]

I'm uncomfortable that as currently written the 3RR rules can be interpreted in a way that leads to blocks being applied without an attempt to resolve things in a more amicable manner. That isn't to say that I regard these particular blocks as ones that I would have done. But I would like to propose that as a response the the incident above, we shift the 3RR rules to a presumption that perceived breaches should usually be responded to with dialogue first and blocks as a last resort. So I've drafted a suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:Edit_warring#slow_burn_edit_warring_and_lack_of_warnings. ϢereSpielChequers 12:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI is a fucking joke[edit]

It is.Self-serving shit-stirrers like Fluffernutter can drag contributors over the coals here, but can admins actually be held to account? Clearly not. Lie through your teeth, pretend it never happened, and never admit to being wrong...

Give me one good reason why, after this ridiculous display of utter contempt for anything but her own ego, I should bother to continue to give a toss about Wikipedia? Clearly pompous self-serving amateur bureaucratics is more important than actually worrying about whether articles are sourced to anything other than snake-oil salesmen, tinfoil-hat merchants, and promoters of drain-cleaner as a cure for AIDS. "Oooh look, there's something that looks vaguely like an edit war" (if you can't be bothered to actually look at the evidence). Find some poor clueless admin-gnome to block everyone, then pile in afterwards with more accusations of editwarring that utterly ignore the fact that by any objective measure, you have been engaged in ten times as much 'edit warring' (by the dubious standards of the block) as the persons accused, and with no mention at all of the fact that you instigated it. Then walk away as if it was none of your business. Well Fluffernutter, let me make clear that the only reason I'm not describing you using a fine old Anglo-Saxon word for the female reproductive orifice is that I have more respect for AN/I (and the relevant organ, and the vast majority of those that have one) than you do. If Wikipedia needs you, I think it can do without me. Why I ever bothered to get involved in this ridiculous cult in the first place, I'm not sure... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Your block was overturned very quickly. Tiptoety was responsible for it, not Fluffernutter. Carry on in this vein though, and you'll get yourself a different kind of block. Why don't you get over it and move on? You're not doing yourself any favours attacking people like this. OohBunnies! Leave a message 03:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
In fact saying that you would compare someone to a certain orifice, but you're not going to for whatever stupid reason, is pretty much the same as actually doing it. For shame. Pathetic insults like that should be beneath you. OohBunnies! Leave a message 03:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
If you're going to comment, please address the issue. Now is not the time to put on let's all be nice to each other hats. Johnuniq (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I am addressing the above issue. The above issue of Andy ranting quite nastily about another user. Sorry, but that's not okay, and it's hardly going to help the situation, is it? OohBunnies! Leave a message 03:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
"Give me one good reason why [...] I should bother to continue to give a toss about Wikipedia?" -> if the above rant is an example of your ordinary behavior and attitude here (and I can't tell as I've never had occasion to interact with you), then it would be contrary to everybody's interest to give you any reason to remain around here. Snowolf How can I help? 03:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, it wasn't all for naught. There appears to be consensus that the overturn was good and the original block bad. ANI can't make an admin admit wrongdoing, but when can you ever force someone to do that in life? All you can do about admins behaving badly is get the action overturned (which you did), and beyond that, show a pattern. At least you've brought this incident to light so it can be used that way in the future, if it ever needs to be. Equazcion (talk) 03:38, 24 Apr 2012 (UTC)
  • Re: this thread is its entirety: To quote Data: [14]. Softlavender (talk) 03:41, 24 April 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:Kiefer.Wolfowitz[edit]

Kiefer.Wolfowitz blocked for a month, which made many people unhappy. Block reduced to 9 days, which made many other people unhappy. Block then increased to 2 weeks, which made some people unhappy, but seemingly fewer people than were made unhappy by the 1 month and 9 day blocks. Closing the thread, as there's nothing really left to do except possibly block other people who are baiting and insulting, which would just create even more unhappiness, and I think we've had more than enough of that this week. 28bytes (talk) 03:55, 24 April 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.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has resumed his pattern of aggression and personal attacks, e.g. [15], [16], [17].

KW was blocked for previously 1 week for incivility, at the start of April (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive745#User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz), and the problem was the subject of an RFC/U in October 2011: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

BHG's quotation of KW was exceptionally dishonest - quoting [18] to be a pledge to engage in disruption is beyond the pale. I understand that the way you play the game is to needle at the opposition until they snap then present a biased picture on IRC (thanks for at least doing this one in the open!), but as usual, it's poor form, again. Where's that cartoon about the dog? Hipocrite (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
What's all that about? I don't use IRC, and was not trying to needle.
I was merely pointing out that the creation of the category in question followed previous contentious appearances at Cfd by the same editor over categories related to that band, and that the category creator had already been engaged in what he called "horseplay", i.e. disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. You may not share my conclusion that the latest creation was also pointy, but please drop the accusation of dishonesty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how "BrownHairedGirl has a problem with honesty or intelligence today" can be considered as anything other than a personal attack. And in an area where KW has been previously blocked for a week for similar behaviour. Perhaps KW thinks it's subtle, though. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
A statement about BHG's behavior today is not a personal attack. However, for WP:NPA violations, see the quotation out of context by BHG, noted above. It is worth noting that BHG quoted out of context my remarks written in a peace-making dialog with Good Olfactory, who behaved honorably and fairly after my blocking, e.g. by listening to my concerns and conveying them, despite his disagreeing with my judgments.
It is a predictable pity that Demiurge1000 appears again without any concern for incivility, AGF, NPA violations against me by BHG, but nobody cares what he writes about me, since he has not had the courtesy to apologize for the smearing of Lihaas as a national socialist, or about his lies in the RfC, where he accused me of deleting material about Penn Kemble that I had in fact restored. But since no administrator has called Demiurge1000 or other familiars to account, what is the point of complaining?
Being honor-bred, I shall withdraw.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I tried to stay out of this, but felt compelled to read some of the previous history, and well, here I am. KW seems to just cross the line in his comments regularly, including the three examples given. Whether or not he was provoked isn't particularly material, as I pointed out to someone else in a discussion above. The degree to which these instances are considered personal attacks might be a little bit overstated, but the long term pattern is brutally clear. Elen of the Roads summed it up neatly with her comment "Good contribution isn't a free pass" at the RFC/U. It is as if he is compelled to take things just one step too far in every comment. His contributions to content here are appreciated and numerous, but if his actions prevent others from contributing because they are forced to seek sanctions against him on a regular basis, then those contributions are diluted. I'm frustrated when an otherwise good editor risks participation because of their inability to remain civil because there is no easy answer, and often we lose otherwise good talent. I would reserve further comment until I hear KW's perspective on the issue, and will simply hope that history doesn't have to repeat itself in the tone of his replies. Dennis Brown © 16:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
    Dennis, would you comment on Brown Haired Girl's behavior or do administrators get free passes to violate civility, AGF, NPA, etc.? Please strike you comments about my inability if you are able.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I hope Brown Haired Girl is wearing a mouthpiece and helmet, because it looks at a glance to me like there's a stalking boomerang headed this way... Stop picking on K-Wolf. Carrite (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
    I wear no protective gear, and don't see why I should need any.
    I have never set out to pick on KW, and have had very little interaction with him. I think that my only encounters with KW have been in a few recent CFDs, when I tried to avoid engaging him. I had never posted on his talk page until Twinkle auto-posted a CFD notice there on my behalf this morning, and I nom'ed the category only after spotting a similar one at CFD and doing some research.
    So what exactly is the basis for this allegation of stalking? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
    Carrite, are you going to explain yourself, or are you going to apologise? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
The meaning seems to me to be self-evident, nor do I see anything requiring apology. People who jam sticks into bee hives shouldn't be surprised when bees act like bees, and they should be strongly advised to stop jamming sticks into bee hives. Carrite (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
N.B.: ...and I nom'ed the category only after spotting a similar one at CFD and doing some research. Carrite (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Shock horror! Editor makes a CFD nomination!!!
Carrite, the purpose of XfD is for editors to make proposals which are then discussed to seek a consensus. I was looking through the current CFD nominations, and commented on several of them. In this case, after I checked out its contents, parents and sub-cats, and the relevant guideline, I nominated its parent for deletion.
If I understand you correctly, what you seem to be saying is that 1) I should have known in advance that KW would respond like an angry bee, and 2) that I should therefore have refrained from proposing the deletion of a category which appeared to be both superfluous and outside of the existing category structure. You may not agree with my proposed deletion, but why do you compare this with jamming sticks into bee hives?
Should I have checked first whether KW was likely to respond with a personal attack, and if so, why? Do you want editors to refrain from opening XfD discussions in relation to pages created by certain editors? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Note that KW has left this note on a certain other user's talk page, which makes me concerned that KW is using this as an attempt to derail Dennis Brown's RfA because DB voiced an opinion that was against Kiefer. —Strange Passerby (talkcont) 19:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, that's on the user's own damn talk page and it looks like a response to some passive aggressive needling. You don't want people to say mean things to you, stop poking them. Agree with Carrite above. And some of you, seriously, you got nothing better to do? Shoo!VolunteerMarek 19:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Marek, how do you figure that's on KW's talkpage, when the link goes to Malleus' page? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
An admin has just blocked him for a month. Way to go people. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems in part because of alleged canvassing, yet I was already aware of Dennis Brown's RfA, as it was discussed on a talk page on my watchlist, here. Malleus Fatuorum 19:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
"...canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate is considered inappropriate." It's clear that KW was trying to get you to jump in on his side, so it's not relevant that you were already aware. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
What's clear to you isn't at all clear to me. I had serious reservations about Dennis Brown's RfA right from the start, for various reasons unrelated to Kiefer. Malleus Fatuorum 19:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
That's entirely fair, Malleus -- I wasn't sure which way to go myself, given the recent history of CSD tagging, and some closes on AN/I I wasn't sure about. However, it's irrelevant whether Kiefer succeeded in influencing your opinion -- just trying is against CANVASS. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • A month block seems... excessive. I've seen far more serious personal attacks receive much softer sanctions recently. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, but this is not a single isolated incident. It's a return to exactly the same behaviour in exactly the same area. In those circumstances, blocks escalate. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I also think this is excessive administration, a month for this minor disruption is undue. - Youreallycan 19:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I think it's a fair block. This is a pattern of personal attacks that this user shows no sign of curbing. You have to draw the line at some point. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
    I'd like to draw the line at you sticking your nose into every AN/I report that you believes offers you an opportunity to get your own back on someone. Malleus Fatuorum 19:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • What would I need to get my own back on him for? What's it got to do with you anyway? Oh yeah, nothing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to spend a lot of time arguing about this (I can't stand edit conflicts), but what bothers me here is that it appears KW is getting the book thrown at him--while worse offenders are getting slaps on the wrist. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • If they are worse offenders than KW, then you should definitely open an RfC/U regarding their behaviour. But don't be surprised when you get a great deal of mud thrown at you for doing so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • If it's got nothing to do with me Bretonbanquet then it's sure as Hell got even less to do with you. Malleus Fatuorum 20:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • You know what I mean. You don't get a say in where I post, barring your talkpage. If you have a complaint to make, please make it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Having, regretfully, noticed this (obviously) I shall comment, for what my remarks are worth. I think it was a pretty blatant violation of WP:CANVASS and whilst I know Malleus was aware of the RFA I'm a little surprised he decided to oppose just after Keifer's note. I thought Malleus to be his own man. I also view KW's actions as a deliberate attempt to derail the RFA in revenge - ironic as before this ANI he was supporting the RFA and BHG was opposing. I think the diff cited above regarding dishonesty or stupidity was certainly overly strident I understand overly strident, me. Nevertheless I don't feel a month block is the way forward here. It doesn't seem preventative at all. When KW's good he's very very good, when he's bad - well he needs to learn to step away from the keyboard - but not for a month. Pedro :  Chat  20:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
    KW's note was simply a memory jogger. But if you're suggesting that without it I might have supported Dennis BRown's RfA then you're way off target. Malleus Fatuorum 20:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
    Don't be so ridiculous. I was awaiting your oppose and was mildly surprised it hadn't turned up earlier. Even you must recognise that opposing that RFA with your first edit after KW's posting looks poor whatever the facts. Pedro :  Chat  20:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
    It's a matter of interpretation. What I did was to oppose after having been reminded of the RfA. Malleus Fatuorum 21:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
    Yes, it's a matter of interpretation. And the perception of others. Pedro :  Chat  21:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
    I have no control over the perception of others. You have admitted that you expected me to oppose the RfA, and I did. When I did has little bearing on anything. Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I don't usually indulge in verbalising the stronger of my thoughts. But ... a month? That is utterly ridiculous, bearing in mind all the background here. I don't usually indulge, either, in anything which other editors could classify as hyperbole. But the phrase "witch-hunt" springs readily to mind. And please note that I have a "civility police" label around my neck. There are fundamental principles which should be observed, and the principle of justice far, far outweighs the principle of "being civil". Pesky (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

What other methods would you suggest for dealing with this behaviour from KW that keeps recurring over, and over, and over again? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm not particularly opposed to backing it down to 2 (or 3?) weeks, I just didn't think that would have any long-term effects.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
That's the crux of it - one week wasn't effective at all, so there's no reason to imagine that two weeks would be. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Or that a month would be either. Malleus Fatuorum 20:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
If one month isn't effective, I recommend the next block be 6 months. If that doesn't work, then the next block after that should be a year. If that still doesn't work, then indefinitely block them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Have you ever seen a block fix anything? Malleus Fatuorum 20:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Come join us in Indian caste articles, and you'll see that it's quite effective there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I'll take a raincheck on that if you don't mind. Malleus Fatuorum 21:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Think a month is OTT for a few reasons (noting that I also opposed his last block here (which was for a week), AND was the one who brought up the "canvassing" incident above). I don't see the original remarks as an "escalation" of any sort. It was Kiefer being Kiefer. Was it a personal attack or uncivil? Probably, yes. But would someone else have been blocked for a month (or even a week, if they had no prior history) for making that comment? Probably not. It seems that the canvassing — I wouldn't have termed it as 'canvassing', more 'an attempt to derail' (but I appreciate it's a minute difference in this case) — has tipped the balance here. Personally I'd rather have just seen a short block to remind Kiefer of his responsibilities as an editor — possibly for the duration of Dennis's RFA for the "canvassing" — but I think a month has a lot of "punitive" to it. —Strange Passerby (talkcont) 20:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I would strongly suggest that extensive homework is done before issuing mega-blocks to anybody, for starters. There are undercurrents and long-term personality clashes in the background here. And Bretonbanquet does have an axe to grind, here (and if anyone really, really wants the diffs, I suppose I could go and dig them up, but whether it's worth the effort to do so simply to undermine the strength of B's post here is debatable. But he knows exactly what I'm talking about, and I pointed out to him at the time that if he didn't cease and desist I would bring it to AN/I, which is not something I usually do). Canvassing? I think the posts were neutrally worded, myself; if I had received such a message (which I didn't), I would have carefully read through all the background to see exactly what was going on. A simple notice that someone with a current RfA was commenting at AN/I might5 actually help some people to make a better-informed assessment of the candidate. But meh, y'know, I don't suppose for one moment that the majority of people actually have the will to do really thorough background research (and by "thorough", I mean taking into account all the previous interaction histories for several months). Selected highlights to promote a particular POV seem to be acceptable, as opposed to "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." [leaving for the evening, I hope] Pesky (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Sarek, absolute maximum would be for the duration of the RfA, and only then if consensus was that the posts weren't neutrally-worded. Seriously. Pesky (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Pesky, that would make sense if I had blocked only for the canvassing. That was just the straw that broke the camel's back. Now, if you feel that KW was improperly provoked, block the provoker, don't give KW a pass for the insults.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Reduced to week-and-two, per some of the comments above. That will allow the RfA to conclude, as was suggested, though it seems that some of the commentary above might have a more detrimental effect on said RfA than anything KW posted. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Acting on "some of the comments" is not exactly operating by consensus, Nikki... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
To clarify, time period chosen was based on some comments above - "maximum would be for the duration of the RfA", for example. Most commentators suggest length was excessive (and you yourself said you would not be opposed to a reduction). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
But "week and two" is a reduction of too much. Two weeks would have been a good minimum, as KW has, regretfully, learned absolutely nothing and not changed his behavior one iota after his previous block - indeed, he instantly resumed exactly the same sort of POINTy behavior that got him blocked last time. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)A reduction to 2 (or 3) weeks was my quote. 9 days is barely an escalation over KW's last pattern-of-incivility block from earlier this month. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Yep, way too much of a reduction. If one week didn't work last time, what makes you think 9 days will? I would think that two weeks would be the absolute minimum. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Fine, two weeks. Can we all go, y'know, edit some content now or something? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's reasonable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Fine with me, although, sadly, I think we will be back here again a great deal sooner than we would like. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I can't block anyone - I'm not (nor do I ever want to be) a Nadmin! (Mainly because I would hate being obliged to adhere to the standards that I would expect from myself, as a Nadmin.) But really, really, the homework which would need to be done here is extensive. And I'm more inclined, personally, to go the reparation / mediation / mentoring route wherever possible than the blocking route (even if I were an admin). People do bait, and provoke, and quote people out of context (which is, in itself a violation of WP:CIVIL). I think it's probably more of a violation than the snap-back response is. I just can't get away from the thing about this block being punitive and not preventative. It's revenge, not damage-limitation, in atmosphere. And there will always be people who will jump on this kind of bandwagon to boost the consensus for things like this, even when they've been self-admittedly deliberately baiting and provoking, themselves, in the past. There's a heap of big mess around the whole civility thing; but seemingly-punitive blocks aren't the way forward. I think it's always well worth doing extensive investigation into the background of "Me too! Me too! Block! Block!" contributors to AN/I. But I appreciate that there's not enough time in the day for admins to do everything to the standards which would be ideal. (And certainly not enough time in my days; far too many commitments and obligations IRL, thanks very much!) Pesky (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I think we're all delighted you got to protest, yet again, that you don't want to be an admin. Is there a B side to the record Pesky? The A side is a tad broken. Pedro :  Chat  21:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Well I suggested mentoring only very recently, and you seemed to think it wouldn't work. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Not "official mentoring", and certainly not for the really-experienced (that's kinda humiliating). But mentoring for baiters and provocateurs (and I recall with a grin Jehochman's comment on us having some master baiters in WikiLand ;P). But people simply saying "Sorry!" sometimes would go such a very long way! It just doesn't feel right that things get dragged to dramahz-boards when a truce, beer, chat, would solve stuff. And a little more tolerance of each other's glitches. [sigh]. We all have glitches. Really making a concerted effort to understand each other better would work. @Pedro: the B-side is just a re-hash of the backing track, remixed to a Happy Hardcore beat ;P Pesky (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl has not baited anybody, and does not deserve to be called stupid and dishonest, period. Any self-respecting member of the civility police should at least acknowledge that simple fact before jumping in with "witch-hunt" accusations. 28bytes (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────The time remaining in the RfA is irrelevant. The blockable offenses were personal attacks and canvassing. In the absence of prior blocks, either would deserve a short block or a stern rebuke. In light of a prior one week block, I support an escalation of the block, but would be happier with two weeks. I don't see any fault with MF - it is entirely believable that he was simply reminded that he planned to weigh in. OTOH, the reminder by KW was wrong, and he should know that.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Please would you go ahead and set the block to two weeks, as opposed to Nikkimaria's rather wheel-warring reduction? I don't think there is anyone opposed to two weeks (as far as I can work out). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I headed over to make the change, but was beaten to the punch --SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
@Pesky The "reparation / mediation / mentoring" route is not incompatible with blocking. On occasion, it takes a block to persuade someone to take proffered advice seriously.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Alleged quoting out of context[edit]

Several editors have picked up KW's claim that I quoted him "out of context", and asserted that this was uncivil. That was certainly not my intention, and AFAICS the facts don't stand it up. KW's talk page is hard to follow, because it includes so many copy-pastes of discussions elsewhere, so it's a bit unclear what is a discussion on his talk and what comes from somewhere else ... so here is a link to the relevant section of KW's talk as it appeared when I read it this morning.

The discussion there relates to Category:Yes (band) Yes Album album covers, created by KW and speedy deleted by another editor. We do have a Category:Album covers by recording artist, but no Category:Album covers by album, so the creation of the category was outside the convention of such categories ... and in the edit from which I quoted, KW explicitly acknowledges that the category was inspired by the renaming of the "Yes album covers" to "Yes (album) album covers", a renaming about which whose wisdom we have agreed to disagree.

The part of that edit which I quoted was I can propose redundant categories as a rhetorical ploy to make the proposer of the Yes-renaming a bit uncomfortable, or one hopes to smile at the occasional absurdities consequent upon consistent application of a WP heuristic. The "Yes (band) (band)" suggestion was horseplay.

He didn't just propose the redundant "Yes (band) (band)" category ... he also created the speedily-deleted Category:Yes (band) Yes Album album covers, and also the category which I saw at CfD today (viz Category:Yes (band) Yessongs songs), plus the Category:Yes (band) Yessongs which I nom'ed for deletion.

The context which I saw was of an editor who a) acknowledged the pointy creation of one category and the proposal of another as horseplay, and b) had now created two further un-needed categories on the same topic. So, how exactly was my quoting here and here of KW's comment about horseplay "out of context"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Context may mean different things to different people. I dunno. But it did seem that you'd categorised (or diff-picked) to illustrate "disruptiveness" as opposed to jokinesss ... it's very hard to put into words precisely (this may be the root of the problem). Your wording, combined with the diffs, didn't seem to represent the whole picture, just one possible slant. Pesky (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Did KW make the edits that BrownHairedGirl just said he made, or not?
What is "jokey" about disrupting Wikipedia, repeatedly, to make a point?
Did KW accuse me of being a liar, and of "smearing" another editor, further up this thread?
Did KW, after he was blocked on this occasion, suggest on his talkpage that "psychosis" might be one explanation of Sarek's actions? Did he also make something approaching a legal threat about Sarek's username?
Did KW suggest that BrownHairedGirl needed "to rest"? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Did KW intimate that I had problems thinking rationally? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Since KW has enthusiastically demonstrated on his talk page that he does not understand the reasons he was blocked, and since KW is currently still only blocked for a reduced amount of time as set by User:Nikkimaria (who was, in my opinion, wheel-warring), perhaps an adminstrator who is able to make difficult blocks should reset the block to three weeks with talk page disabled? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Why would you want his talk page disabled? OohBunnies! Leave a message 00:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Seriously, why is everyone so trigger happy and block happy? Is he doing damage to the encyclopedia at the moment? If he's not, then disengage and walk away. A month was too long - and quite frankly so is two weeks. Fwiw, I've never interacted with the guy, but really, isn't there anything else to do here? Truthkeeper (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Nice to see you here, Truthkeeper. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and while you're here, did you know about the new tools that help to distinguish between truth and lies? [19] --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
You're being very baitey. So, you've discovered that I've edited pages he has. I've never interacted with him at all. Your edit summary was something to effect that urgent admin action is needed - please answer the question: is the encyclopedia being harmed by whatever it is that he's doing? Truthkeeper (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
"A month was too long - and quite frankly so is two weeks. Fwiw, I've never interacted with the guy" - if you had, you'd realise that two weeks is barely long enough, since he was previously blocked for a week for exactly the same actions and behavior that he is blocked for now. And I agree, sadly, that we're likely to be right back here three weeks from now. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
You're right - I've blissfully kept AN/I unwatched for months until about 48 hours ago, and I'm about to unwatch again. Seeing Demiurge's call to action I had a look b/c I though something really bad was happening. Anyway, I think someone might want to look into this massive show of bad faith and incivility on the part of Demiurge. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Do you have anything to say about Demiurge1000's accusation that Truthkeeper was lying? Or Pedro's latest abusive ranting? Malleus Fatuorum 00:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm waiting to hear back from Truthkeeper, just as I'm waiting for an administrator with some guts to undo Nikkimaria's wheel-warring. All things in time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Demiurge1000: Nikkimaria did not wheel war. Also, you do appear to be baiting Truthkeeper; perhaps, considering your past interactions with KW, this might be a good point for you to gracefully bow out of this thread. 28bytes (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion on that. Carry on. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
It's my opinion too, but you needn't thank me. We'll all carry on as we see fit, no need for your blessing on that. Do you really not understand the difference between interacting and editing the same page? Else consider me as the great interactor of Kiefer.Wolfowitz (see toolperver), Truthkeeper88 ([20]) and Demiurge1000 ([21]). Oddly, I recall no interactions with either of these three fine editors. Please provide diffs, not brute insignificant statistics. We get it. You don't like Kiefer. We heard you the first time. No need to run up and down, commenting on everyone's post with your personal take on the situation. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Accusation of lying the third, fourth (?) time and directive to go back to writing? [22] Seriously, this is acceptable? I've only run into this guy a couple of times before and haven't a clue why he's being so baitey or uncivil. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:38, 24 April 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.