Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive752

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

Noticeboard archives


Editor help[edit]

I hope this is the correct place to post (if not, please point me in the right direction). User:Baku Shad-do has been removing sourced content from the article Crosses (band) (diff, diff, diff, diff). There has been a discussion about the genre before here (which I pointed out to the editor) that argues for the inclusion. The editor's argument is that the sources on the genre article prove that sources are wrong because of their description/definition of what the genre is. However, he has failed to provide sources that specifically state that Crosses are not witch house. I have assumed the editor was new (editing since May 6) and pointed out the three core policies of Wikipedia (WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV), in case he wasn't aware, on my talk page. All I received in reply was a warning and the threat of a report to admin. I tried to make myself clear to him, but it looks like I've failed. Could someone weigh in on this small issue? Would appreciate it. HrZ (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I dropped an edit warring warning on their talk page as they're up to 3 reverts already. You're also up to 3 reverts so please stop reverting each other. I also find it ironic that he pointed out your spelling errors when he made an error himself. He may also have a conflict on interest seeing as he's apparently the owner of a label. Beyond the edit warring, this is really a content dispute and would be better taken to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Blackmane (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Blackmane, I was not removing sourced content, I removed a music genre label. The criteria of labeling a genre is not the same as using a source in a description. I have adequately sourced the definition in the genre and have provided an article that accurately traces the origins of the genre. The issue is that a certain beat-form is the defining element of all witch house music. The band has no material that fits the paradigm. I can give you access to more articles if you'd like or access to an entire forum where all the artists from the genre converse. In addition, the user known as HrZ seems not to know that the articles he's using were long ago found to be in error, indicating he has no further knowledge of the genre (beyond the articles he's using as sources). I will gladly give you the means to connect with any number of writers who have covered the genre in depth, the issue is not about a personal conflict, it is about showing respect to a genre and not allowing for the corporate misuse and abuse of a term to promote a mainstream artist who has nothing to do with the genre. Baku Shad-do (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

At best? Listen man, there are a bunch of people who have no real or defined knowledge of the genre or the music from it, posting poorly researched articles willy nilly that disrespect the genre and have a negative impact on the public perception of the genre. There's a wikipedia editing group that is actually specifically supposed to oversee problem definitions for genres, but none of you have handled the procedure correctly, by getting them involved. I'll rectify that on Monday. Baku Shad-do (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you were removing sourced content. You just don't like the source. Also, you did not add any source to support the genre you replaced it with. I also note that you have not participated in the discussion on the Talk page about the genre, so you have no reasonable basis for unilaterally altering the article. You've also been editing the Witch house (music genre) article, even though, just as with the band article, you have a clear conflict of interest (I've placed tags on both articles). The genre article is a mess, although it looks like it was a mess even before you edited it. I don't have time to review either article in depth at the moment, but, if only based on your conflict, I suggest you back off and stick to discussing the content in these articles on their Talk pages rather than directly editing them. You also have edit-warred on the genre article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Criticism in an encyclopedic context is a legitimate sourced criticism, not intentional defamation of a genre. You can source defamation, but that does not make it legitimate criticism. You need to learn the difference between the two and yes there is a legal definition. I did provide sources, just because you don't like them doesn't mean you have the right to condescend. Although I do have a label that doesn't necessarily make me biased. I'm honest enough to say what my connection is, yes I'm involved in the scene, but odds are both you and the other poster are as well, hence your vehemence that you're right. Your lack of disclosure of your relation to the scene points to the likelihood that you have a biased agenda, whether it be direct or indirect. Let's get an actual administrator involved. Baku Shad-do (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You would like an administrator to weigh in? Sure. You (Baku Shad-do) are edit warring, removing content that is verified by a reliable source. Your only defense for doing so is your own original research that the band simply isn't in that genre, despite the fact that the source says it is. I do see some concern on the article's talk page that this source may not be reliable; if this is the case, then the information should be removed. If, however, the source is reliable, it should be re-added. Wikipedia does not rely upon the personal analysis of its editors for information, including for characterizing the genre of a particular artist. Note that if you had an additional reliable source stating that they are not witch house, then I would recommend taking it out of the infobox and discussing the two competing sides in the text proper; you, however, have not produced such a source.
So, in short, the editors should figure out if that meets WP:RS (try WP:RSN if you're not sure), and, if it does, feel free to re-add it, and it should be removed only if counter-sources are found. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Pitchfork's reliability has come into question on occassion, though I am unsure wither this is down to a few articles on the site or the site itself. However, there was a discussion on this genre before and User:Fezmar9 posted two more sources labelling the band witch house: "Actually, the issue is much larger than that since other reliable sources see Crosses as witch house such as The New Zealand Herald and Forbes—the latter of which even acknowledges that the term originated as a joke, but has legitimate applications today." Baku Shad-do has finally taking to the article talk page, my reply was very similar to yours (Qwyrxian), that he should provide sources stating that they are not witch house and any questions of reliability of the sources to be taking to WP:RSN. Also, is there any chance that someone could revert back to the sourced version until discussions are done? Currently, the version has an unsourced genre added by Baku Shad-do. HrZ (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Original research? Listen, this is no insult to your credibility, but I owned one of the original three labels in the genre, I am one of the people who helped define the term, which doesn't make me biased it makes me a legitimate direct source. Baku Shad-do (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

At best, it makes you an expert, and although experts can make valuable contributions to Wikipedia, they must comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which you fail to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
At best? That's more than a little bit insulting. Listen man, there are a number of people with no real knowledge of the genre, outside of reading a few articles, who are posting poorly researched and factually erroneous articles willy nilly that disrespect the genre and negatively affect the public perception of it (that is not the purpose of Wikipedia). Wikipedia has a proper and specific procedure for problem articles surrounding music genres, which I can plainly see hasn't even been observed by anyone, including the admins here. There is a Wikipedia music genre editing project that is supposed to deal with such specific issues, such as correcting problem edits for all genres. I'll make sure they get involved by Monday. Baku Shad-do (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

This editor has now started yet another conversation about this where they admit to possibly recruiting on an outside forum. [1]. Ridernyc (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely I will, I plan to share all of these conversations with the members of the genre, that way they can see why their genre is being poorly defined and misrepresented. If you'll carefully read at the bottom of the page, Wikipedia has granted the right to share its contents, given that they are properly cited, by their Creative Commons licensing. If the current editors can't do an honest job then Wikipedia needs more editors with knowledge of the genre. Baku Shad-do (talk) 01:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Baku Shad-do, I know that this sounds weird, but relying on your own personal knowledge as one of the preeminent people in the field is exactly what Wikipedia defines as original research. For example, Jimbo Wales, founder of Wikipedia, cannot go to the article on Wikipedia, and edit it based on something that he remembers happening in the past. Information is included in Wikipedia (when done correctly) only when it can be verified in a reliable source. If you think about it, you can probably see why this is necessary--just because someone is an expert does not mean someone is infallible. In fact, experts regularly disagree, all the time--it's practically the foundation of how academic research works. The whole point of WP:V and WP:OR is that anyone should be able to see, via a citation, where the information on Wikipedia comes from. So, as I said, if you can produce reliable sources that say that this band is not witch house, then you can include those in the article along with the originals that say it is, and then we have the perfectly acceptable situation where we say, "Different sources disagree on this point". I hope this helps explain how Wikipedia works so that this matter can be resolved. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
In addition, Baku, recruiting other people to edit in a certain way is meatpuppetry and is against policy, just so that's clear. However Qwy explains things very well. I might suggest you also read, in addition to the verifiability policy, the reliable sources policy and the no original research policy, the verifibility, not truth essay (and its light-hearted but point-making crazy uncle, WP:TRUTH, along with possibly WP:GWARRIOR). Being right is something Wikipedia should absolutely aspire to, but more important than being absolutely right is being reliably verifiable. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Apparently this "edit" war has been happening since at least December [2] seems this topic is a popular one for various groups hoax and troll over online. Looking over the talk page and edit history I think some sort of page protection might be in order here. Ridernyc (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Junior Achievement[edit]

Could someone take a look at this article for me. An editor, with a very clear COI, keeps on inserting text that is, in my opinion overly-promotional. The editor seems to be under several misconceptions about Wikipedia having made statements like "We manage our brand very carefully and would not want our Wikipedia page content created by someone outside Junior Achievement" (see the article talk page for more). There seems to be a clear failure to listen and I think admin action of some sort may now may be appropriate but I'm too involved now. Dpmuk (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

  • That is one hot mess. I reverted. Dpmuk, there are three relatively fresh accounts in there: I think maybe you should start an SPI. I've left an "only warning" for the most recent COI editor--they've been aware of this since January yet they persist in guarding their brand, and turning the article into promotion. I agree that a block is in order, but I'd prefer someone else to look at this as well. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I've left a friendly, informative message at User talk:Sbell1964co, so at this point I believe the ball is in their court. They cannot claim ignorance of Wikipedia's policies on this any more. Let us see where this goes before taking any action. Hopefully, the message I left will get the point accross, if it doesn't we can only assume a willful disregard for Wikipedia's standards. I say wait for the next move, however, before deciding to take further action. --Jayron32 19:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Given the discussion on the article's talk page where both Moonriddengirl and I mentioned WP:COI and which they must have seen (as they've replied to it) I don't think they were able to claim ignorance before today's events.
    • As for the WP:SPI idea I'm not sure this would serve a useful purpose as we already know they work for the same organisation and any other links between them could also plausibly be explained by this. Dpmuk (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, but at my place of work individual computers (I think) have individual IPs. That could point at more than just being colleagues. Drmies (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Could be multiple private IP's sharing a pool of public IP's though. Ravensfire (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
          • I feel the situation might be salvageable. I've offered to help if they agree to cease article-space edits. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 20:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Lord of mercy. Aside from the infobox, this article is basically in the same state as when it was created eight years ago, and it doesn't seem that there;s been much in the way of non-COI work on it in the interim. Is this even a notable organisation? If not, then the brand presence may be better protected by deleting the article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

My initial reflex response was that they were probably not notable, but a quick Google News search seems to show plenty of news coverage. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 19:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


Please move this discussion somewhere else, and now[edit]

Wikipedia editors who are no longer alive have family and friends who are alive. This thread is discussing what to do with the accounts of deceased Wikipedia editors as if it is just a policy matter, or a tech issue, or an unblock request. WP:AN/I is a high-visibility part of Wikipedia. WP:AN/I, as well being the noticeboard for administrator action, is unfortunately the haunt of trolls and drama-mongers. I think it is quite simply wrong that this matter is being discussed here. I would ask that this discussion be moved to an WP:RFC, or WP:VPP, or anywhere else, and now. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done Nobody Ent 12:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Blatant canvassing at AFD[edit]

User:Pbmaise blatantly canvassaed at (apologies you have to scroll almost the whole page) to get users to keep an article he created up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitt Romney Cranbrook incident Hot Stop 08:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm really glad to know that Wikipedia is being accused of both right-wing and left-wing censorship. If you can't please all sides in politics, the next best thing is to please no one. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I believe that's actually meatpuppetry, not canvassing, since it occured off-wiki, although the result is the same in the end. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
The specific post on Pbmaise's blog is here. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

No one notified Pbmaise. I rectified that.Fasttimes68 (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Sven Manguard on The Amazing Race related pages[edit]

No consensus for action. (Restore [3] previous close] Nobody Ent 20:46, 14 May 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.

For some time (the past few years at least), I have been working on the articles for the American (turned international) television program The Amazing Race. After the airing of each episode, I search the Commons or Flickr for free images that could be used in the sections/episode summaries of each article, usually depicting locations visited and rarely being similar to tasks performed. On two occasions, I decided I could not find anything free on either website to accurately depict some of the events in the episode and I took a promotional photo that the production team uploads to their website and include that as the only non-free image (excepting the title card in the main infobox) in the article. This has never been an issue until now.

Sometime last week, Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) decided to orphan an image I uploaded to depict an event that took place during The Amazing Race 19 program, claiming "This is no place for a non-free file". I did not discover this until Friday when one of the "Your non-free image has been orphaned" bots notified me on my talk page. I replaced it (another user had put an unrelated free image in its place after discovering the promotional photo had disappeared) and raised the issue on Sven's talk page. He responded, citing WP:NFCC#8, and proceeded to orphan the photo again and then listed the photo on FFD (I unorphaned the photo as it should not have been orphaned mid-FFD as far as I am aware). This was all on Friday.

Today, I discovered that Sven had decided to start FFDs for the other four non-free images being used on Amazing Race pages and orphaned two other promotional photos citing NFCC 8 because there are free images showing locations and simple activities related to the actions in the program on the 20 season pages. This is getting unnecessarily disruptive at this stage as it appears he has decided that this entire range of articles should not be allowed to have non-free images at all, except for the title card. They are seven non-free images (three of which depict the season's winners at the finish line, which arguably are not necessary) amongst around 300 free images throughout the 20 or so pages, and his argument is that some other free image exists to depict an event in the show or represent that particular episode, when there is clearly no free alternative to contestants in the act of performing a unique task that is not reproducable. Again, Sven's actions are extremely disruptive and he is stretching the definition of WP:NFCC#8 to say that these few photos are not allowed.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that something's definitely wrong with Sven here, as I also feel that he is disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I think Sven has made a good faith deletion nomination on the photo. (Whether it actually meets or fails NFCC is a topic for the FfD discussion) As for whether the photo should be orphaned on nomination, is there any policy or guideline that specifies whether the image should be left in pending deletion discussion on NFCC grounds? Monty845 20:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
It's not just one photo. It's a whole series of them that Sven has decided should not be allowed because there are free images to allude to events. Even if the one of the contestant going into the cave is not the best, he said that this more specific one of the task in the cave being performed I suggested as a possible replacement should not be allowed as an alternative either. With his actions today it is clear he thinks no fair use images are to be allowed on these pages, because free ones have been sought out for the other 250 episodes.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
How important is that to understanding the topic of the Amazing race really? I mean, would the reader come away from the article with a substantial gap in their understanding of what the race was? I would say not, sure it provides a vivid graphical illustration, but it is not necessary to understand the topic. Monty845 20:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
It provides more understanding than just a photo of a location they happened to have visited in that episode, that's for sure. Using an example from one of the photos he put up for deletion today, we can't say "they drank from thousands of cups of tea" and just have a photo of the building it happened in.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but NFCC requires more then just a better understanding the image qualifies if it would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. I think that is intended to be a high threshold. Monty845 20:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
To some extent, Sven is right. NFCC#1, replacability, does not care if a free image currently exists as long as one most likely can exist, and ergo a non-free image as a substitute is not allowed. Unless said countries have no freedom of panoroma that would prevent free images from being taken, the use of non-frees to depict a leg in the show is improper.
This is not excusing his method (removing a file to claim it orphaned, rather than FFD'ing the image to get consensus before removal) of achieving this. --MASEM (t) 20:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I am astonished to see you support the legend that "removing a file to claim it orphaned" is somehow illegitimate. If you see a non-free file in an article that shouldn't be there, removing it is the obvious first response per WP:BOLD and WP:SOFIXIT, and subsequently tagging it as orphaned is the formally inevitable next step. Fut.Perf. 20:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
At least the nomination I looked at declared he had orphaned it under Criteria 8, so its not like he orphaned it and then acted like he just found it that way. The underlying question though is should the image be orphaned pursuant to NFCC 8 at the time the problem is detected, or remain in the article until the deletion discussion on the underlying image concludes. Is there a specific policy on that? Monty845 20:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think there is a single general answer to that. There are several factors involved: on the one hand, non-free media generally require consensus for inclusion, not consensus for removal, so in a case where there is a serious, reasoned objection to an image it's a reasonable expectation that an image should be left out pending consensus to the contrary. Also, as I said above, removal is always a legitimate WP:BOLD first response to an image perceived as inappropriate. On the other hand, it is sometimes practically advantageous to have the image in the article while an FFD runs, for the simple reason that it makes it easier for observers to judge its usage and the appropriateness of the FUR. Also, I think it is a demand of fair process that if an image gets orphaned immediately prior or during an FFD, its orphaned status should then not be seen as triggering automatic timed-speedy deletion concurrently with the FFD, but the FFD should be allowed to run its course. Fut.Perf. 20:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
He orphaned it, it was replaced by a different photo, I un-orphaned it, he orphaned it, again, and then he put it up for FFD while it was orphaned for this second time.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Unless its a straight up obvious violation that can't be fixed by any amount of editing, removal before discussion is not the way to go. You cannot claim that on NFCC#8 violation since that is absolutely subjective and can only be determined by consensus - and one that can be fixed by adding sourced text, or the like. NFCC#1 is a bit more objective, but even then, discussion before removal is better wikipractice. --MASEM (t) 20:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
What has the subjectivity of NFCC#8 got to do with anything? You don't need any more prior discussion and consensus for removing an image than for removing any other piece of content, for whatever reason. WP:BOLD applies. Fut.Perf. 20:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, WP:BRD applies, but unfortunately, after Ryulong's revert, Sven did not begin discussion (either via talk page of FFD), but he reverted again, violating BRD. This is inappropriate. SilverserenC 20:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay, maybe if you're randomly going through articles and you find a NFC you don't think meets the criteria, you can remove it. But if you're getting those removals reverted, re-removing is a violation of WP:BRD and the next proper step is either at the talk page or to FFD. Since Sven is doing this en masse and has been reverted a few times and on related pages, he should very well know his actions are not fully agreed to and should approaching this via talk pages. (I use past actions on people like Beta and the like in maintaining NFC as reasoning here). And yes, NFCC#8 is very subjective. While BOLD says you can remove it, if it can be fixed, there's better and less contentious routes for fixing it if you can't do it yourself. This is comparable to adding tags like cn instead of wiping out sections of text that are otherwise not contentious to an article. --MASEM (t) 20:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
He has not been citing NFCC#1, though. It's been NFCC#8, stating that this one non-free image does not add to the article. While he is arguably right for the three photos of teams at the finish line, and Marcus Pollard on a rope going down into a cave was probably not the best choice I could have made for non-free photos (I could not find any free photos of the cave itself on Flickr, and one can only say "[X] was the Pit Stop for this Leg of the Race" so many times), he's been removing all non-free photos/screencaps from the articles, and only after his orphaning has been challenged is he sending everything to FFD.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
And that is precisely the correct process. Absolutely nothing wrong with it. Fut.Perf. 20:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
If he then took it to FFD immediately afterward, then yes. But reverting again is definitely wrong. SilverserenC 20:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
So he made one (1) revert in the process. Shrug. Big deal. Why is this a matter for ANI? What would we do if people routine came here complaining about other editors once they made their first revert on something? Fut.Perf. 20:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
He's being disruptive across several articles within one topic area. This is why I brought it here.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
As an outsider who is semi-active with FFD, I've noticed this ANI dealings, and I wanted to toss my opinion in for what it is worth. Every image that I have seen that Sven has nominated for FFD from the Amazing race does indeed fail NFCC#8 and therefore it is appropriate that he nominates it for deletion through FFD. Hardly is his doing so disruptive. Also, this whole incident notice is a little unwarranted since he only made one mistake (assuming good faith). Also, for the record, Sven is most likely not targeting anything or anyone as he very often goes through images for cleanup. Just my opinion, take it for what it is worth. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
The FFD part is not disruptive. That's actually what should be happening. It's the removal to make it fall as an orphaned image, and then using the usual autodeletion of orphaned images to otherwise bypass discuss is what is the problem. --MASEM (t) 21:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey all, just got back in. Both times I removed the original image from the article I left a rationale in the edit summary. When I nominated it for deletion after the second removal, it was because I realized that the image would just get put back in, making the whole excercise pointless, so I listed it at FFD mentioning that I was the one that orphaned it. As for the rest of the images that I listed at FfD, Ryulong and the other TAR people managed to create articles for sixteen seasons without using a single non-free image, so the claim that the photos from the other four articles somehow meet NFCC #8's standards are, to me, laughable. I understand that Ryulong has an attachment to the article, and that may be affecting his judgement on the matter, but the fact that he's found solutions to every other event, and free photos of the other competetors, means that he has no arguement for keeping the photos. As for the last two removals, I intended on replacing them with free images from the season articles when I got back in tonight, but at this point I'm in no great rush to help Ryulong out. If he can't be bothered to edit without violating policy, and then goes on the attack when it's pointed out, then I'm not going to help fix the problem. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I still don't see why it's an issue that two out of 200 images on the season's pages are non-free. And I do not think that replacing the non-free photos on the central article is going to be worth it. They are used to accompany text that defines the general rules of the program. You can't just take a photo being used to represent the event on another article to replace those.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
see WP:VEGAN --Guerillero | My Talk 03:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
That's a new one. But, to keep with that analogy, I'm the one bringing animal products to the vegan potluck. Perhaps I did not need to use non-free images for two of the show's 200 or so episodes when I found free ones for the other 198 (I'd prefer that they be kept because they are still educational), but Sven said he was planning on replacing two non-free images on the main page of the show, which are being used to help define the show's terminology, with free photos as found in what are effectively the episode lists. I assume this would entail replacing the photo of contestants eating large quantities of Argentine beef with a platter of meat and alluding to the events without actually showing the event in question.—Ryulong (竜龙) 04:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Not really that new. It's been on Angr's user page since 2007 and to his credit, he never closes FFDs on non-free images. The question that comes to mind when I read that essay is "Are we a free (libre) encyclopedia or are we a free (beer) encyclopedia that just happens to use a libre license?" --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
You shouldn't orphan an image if you send it to FFD - let the discussion see it in context. --MASEM (t) 04:05, 14 May 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.

Source information inquiry for OTRS ticket # 2012040510010002[edit]

In order to process an OTRS ticket I need to know the author and any other relevant information as to the source of the following image:

Thank you for your time, MorganKevinJ(talk) 00:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Sent an email, let me know if I misunderstood your question.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Since i am not an admin I can not view the information on the file description page. I need to know what source and author is cited on the file description page. MorganKevinJ(talk) 01:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Entire contents of the file description page just before deletion were as follows:

Extended content
{{di-no permission|date=13 April 2012}}

|Description = Skip Stewart flies under jumping motorcycles {{OTRS pending}}
|Source = his Facebook profile
|Author = Skip Stewart
|Permission = '''Evidence:''' Will be provided on request.

{{PD-author|Skip Stewart}}
{{Category ordered by date|Files licensed by third parties|2012|04|05}}

There had been few changes since upload; it was tagged for lack of permission, {{OTRS pending}} was added, and an admin extended the di-no permission template by a few days to give OTRS a little more time. Nothing else changed from upload to deletion. Nyttend (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


Seeing repeated posts of copyvios, and contesting the speedy deletions thereunto pertaining. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

User has not had any copyright warning until today, and has not reposted any deleted article. Speedies contested have been A7s. No action required unless these warnings are ignored. JohnCD (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed. It isn't a "problem" quite yet. Dennis Brown - © 09:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


Eisfbnore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) requested a sockpuppet investigation of No parking here (talk · contribs) less that three weeks after this user had been cleared in a previous investigation (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sju hav/Archive). While the sockpuppet investigation was underway Eisfbnore also went ahead and reverted all edits by the suspected user. As this investigation was concluded and No parking here was still not found to be a sockpuppet as charged, I undertook to revert all those articles that had been purged out of order. Now, 3 days following these events Eisfbnore again ventures to mass delete edits made by No parking here with no substantive explanation. I attempted to query Eisfbnore about this but my inquity was curtly deleted with the edit summary "you're not welcome here; stay off this page". I leave it up to the community to suggest what actions, if any, should be the result of this complaint. Suffice it to say, I find the behavior of Eisfbnore quite unacceptable. __meco (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I am quite bemused as to why the SPI gave no positive results. Having fought against the seven seas for aprox. one year, I can unhesitatingly say that the edit pattern and modus operandi of No parking here are identical to the other socks. Exactly the same old editing type: addition of criticism sections and other ordure to BLPs, which I as a good Wikipedian cannot let happen. Also note that meco is permanently banned from the Norwegian Bokmål/Riksmål Wikipedia[4], so that could perhaps explain why he has always been defending the socks and the trolls in their crusade against the integrity of the English Wikipedia. Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 14:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Right. Never mind I was the one who filed the first request for a sockpuppet investigation against same user. But hey, who cares about the details? __meco (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
CU was negative. Period. This revert on Eisbfnore's part was reverted for the right reasons (I haven't checked others), as far as I can tell. meco's position on the Norwegian wiki has no bearing on the matter here, at least not until you come with something more specific than a vague attempt at character assassination. Blanket reverts without proper arguments are not acceptable. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Page Protection Backlog[edit]

Hello, there is a backlog at WP:RPP, if a couple admins could help, it would be appreciated. - NeutralhomerTalk • 19:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

User:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous[edit]

Resolved: I blocked the user indefinitely and protected their talk page after they continued the attacks in their unblock requests. Dreadstar 01:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

This user seems to have violated BLP [5]. I warned him on his talk page, but he reverted me calling it "bullshit" [6]. He then re-inserted the information I believe to be a violation [7]. BeCritical 20:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you be more vague? Didn't think so. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Also this edit summary [8] needs to be oversighted. BeCritical 20:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I took care of the edit summary, but will let another admin look at the rest of the post's contents. Had AKA not reverted the worst of the personal attack, I would have blocked him. Dreadstar 20:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
That kind of massive WP:BLP violation has no place here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely not; in fact, I've RD2'd the diffs in which the worst violation appeared. There's no reason and no excuse for comments like that anywhere on Wikipedia, and any repeat performance should result in blocking on sight. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Totally agree on all counts, Bushranger. Dreadstar 23:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I've blocked this user for 2 weeks. This is (at least) the second serious WP:BLP violation by this editor (the first resulted in a previous block). Combined with the unrelentingly combative attitude, I'm actually strongly considering blocking the account indefinitely until there's some actual indication of willingness to abide by this site's basic policies. MastCell Talk 23:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd concur with an indefinite block, this user is extremely difficult to deal with and shows no remorse or willingness to listen to others. Dreadstar 23:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Article on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh is extremely POV and denying that it has participated in violence[edit]

No administrator action required. AniMate 00:36, 15 May 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 am asking for assistance from administrators to investigate the article on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) for POV. The article on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a Hindu nationalist militant paramilitary movement, is denying that the movement's well-known violent political behaviour towards Muslims in India and mostly focuses on its philanthropic efforts towards Hindus, stating in the intro that all statements on its violence are "alleged" - meaning that they are contested. This is not supported by mainstream sources. Efforts in the talk page to address the controversial aspects of the RSS have failed, the discussion descended into angry rebuttals, assumption of bad faith in violation with Wikipedia policy, and character assassination against Wikipedia users. The Encyclopedia of War Crimes and Genocide on page 186 includes evidence compiled by the internationally-respected Human Rights Watch that says that during the 2002 Gujarat violence, "A plot to uproot the Muslim population of the state had been underway for some time: the RSS had circulated computerized lists of Muslim homes and businesses that were to be targeted by the mobs in advance." [9]. This has not been the first time that the RSS has incited violence against Muslims - it vouched for the demolition of Babri Masjid mosque in 1992 against fierce opposition by Muslims, resulting in the ancient mosque being torn down and eruption of violence between Hindus versus Muslims in which the RSS took part in anti-Muslim violence that resulted in the Indian government banning the RSS. The RSS has claimed that non-Hindus - including Muslims - are not considered by the RSS to be citizens of India and rejects any citizenship rights for non-Hindus, because it claims that the only "true" citizens of India are Hindus.--R-41 (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The RSS is a highly controversial movement in India, for instance there are multiple books by scholars on fascism such as Stanley Payne, Walter Laqueur and others who investigated the RSS' connection with fascism - such as the former RSS leader's praising of Hitler's "purification" of Germany into ethnic German-only citizenship that he claimed should be a model for India to become a Hindu-only citizenship, as well as investigations that have uncovered that the RSS was inspired by Italian Fascist youth organizations. It is well-known to have participated in planned violence against India's Muslims, this needs to be stated in the intro, and material outright denying this needs to be removed from the article.--R-41 (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

  • To balance Wikipedia articles on controversial subjects, we look to English-language sources as well as foreign-language reliable sources (and the RSS Web home page as it extols its virtues). If reliable sources such as the BBC here: “Analysis: RSS aims for a Hindu nation”, tend to devote XX percent of news articles to controversial and/or unflattering aspects, then that serves as guidance (along with similar most-reliable sources) as to how Wikipedia should filter the balance. Mere wikipedians do not presume to take it upon themselves to decide primary policy in determining this sort of balance; we look to RSs.

    If the proponents who are objecting to the inclusion of the notable, non-flattering aspects don’t go with the flow, there are various remedies (tools) on Wikipedia for addressing this sort of thing; they best be advised to get with the program and compromise. This could easily go the way of Scientology if this proves an intractable problem. Wikipedia is not a soapbox to promote something so even someone’s mother-in-law is impressed with their membership in RSS. 00:08, 15 May 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.

Blanking on Sebo by Beingcorrect[edit]

There appears to be a blanking issue on that article by the mentioned user, however, as I'm not completely familiar with the article, I'm not willing to continue. He already removed content once without an explanation, so I reverted and left him a {{uw-delete1}} template. However, he again blanked it, but with an edit summary this time. - Zhou Yu (talk) 01:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

This isn't an ANI issue. After 4 warning it it normal to take this to WP:AIV. I stubified the article removing the content that was had a purely promotional tone --Guerillero | My Talk 03:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

User talk page blanking[edit]

Blanking one's own talk page is allowed per WP:BLANKING. No admin action needed --Guerillero | My Talk 03:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User has been repeatedly removing my comments from his talk page. There is no reason to remove them, as they are entirely appropriate comments related to the user's action in certain articles. I have informed the user that it is against Wikipedia policy to remove other people's comments, but he has continued to do so. -- (talk) 03:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

With a few minor exceptions not relevant here, editors are free to remove comments from their own talk pages. Monty845 03:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
No they aren't: "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission.".[10] The exceptions outlined there include such things as vandalism etc., which is not the case here. Archiving is a different matter, also not the case here. -- (talk) 03:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
From that same page, it explicitly states that "Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted". Reyk YO! 03:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Monty and Reyk are correct. WP:BLANKING goes into more detail. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
That is related to the archiving of old threads, which is not the case here. In the very beginning it says that the "'The basic rule ... is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission". If anyone could freely delete every question and bit of criticism people post on their talk pages, these talk pages would become meaningless. -- (talk) 03:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
No, it's pretty clear: Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display and usually users should not be forced to do so. It is often best to simply let the matter rest if the issues stop. --NeilN talk to me 03:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
In that case I think the intro (quoted above) to the guidelines page should be changed, as it is misleading. I remember from another language Wikipedia users getting warnings for removing comments of others from their talk pages. Is the policy supposed to apply to all language versions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Policies on en-wikipedia apply to only en-wikipedia --Guerillero | My Talk 03:40, 15 May 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.

on WP:TPO "Personal talk page cleanup" was the last entry on a list of 17 items, I have moved it up the list, second only to "If you have their permission." if someone who feels this is helpful would like to support the idea, (in case of knee jerk reaction) by keeping an eye on WP:TPO, that would be helpful. Penyulap 08:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Nikolić[edit]

blocked, unblocked with mentoring and edit restrictions. Further discussion, if necessary, regarding long term editing patterns would better be served by RFC/U Nobody Ent 14:38, 15 May 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 might as well report myself - In this BLP - Andrew Nikolić - I am trying to present a NPOV addition after a complaint at the BLP noticeboard. I am over 3RR and if users keep removing without good reason I am going to keep replacing this supportive comment to this BLP. Its a cited supportive comment from the President of the Liberal Party - Can the Admin that blocks me please explain the policy reason for the cited content removal. Thanks - Youreallycan 17:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

  • An admin who blocks you or your counterpart is, as you well know, under no obligation to explain why the other's edit is better than yours. You're both over the line, you should both be blocked. Or you can both start acting like adults. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • As sympathetic as I am with YRC's view on the substance of the dispute, the conduct on the Nikolic Talk page is way out of line (accusations of libel, sock puppetry, etc.), and, not surprisingly, very little real progress is being made on the dispute. The irony of creating section headers called "Back on topic" and then quickly regressing into the sniping is stark.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Please do note the statement above: "if users keep removing without good reason I am going to keep replacing this supportive comment to this BLP" -- it couldn't possibly be clearer that this editor intends to continue edit-warring. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Bah, Nomo., you're a provocateur who racks up warnings and blocks like notches on his belt or her purse strap, and the worst example of Jimbo Wales' fear that it was going to be Usenet. Have you ever created anything of value for the project at all? Colton Cosmic (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I wonder who you are, Colton Cosmic. The comments I've seen from you so far at ANI are worse than useless. You seem to get fun out of stirring the shit pot. I have a special little bag of resentment for namechangers who aren't open about their previous account. Drmies (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
No I don't get fun from stirring the pot. Give an hyperlink for it if I do. Colton Cosmic (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC) PS: Drmies, Why are you cursing, this is a family encyclopedia. Colton Cosmic (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, in our articles about living people neutral reporting should be a priority. The removal of this supportive comment avoids that, as such its removal is imo a BLP violation if you have a good reason for its removal I will stop attempting to replace it. - Youreallycan 18:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Is the statement supported by the reference it precedes? If so, then there needs to be a good reason for removing it. If not, then it's "hijacking" the existing reference in order to make it look referenced, it's an unreferenced statement in a BLP, and either way you're declaring your intent to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Also, WP:BLP does not require neutral reporting. It requires that reliable sources must be present to verify any and all controversial or potentially defamatory material, neutrality has nothing to do with it. If the only reliable sources on a BLP are negative, then trying to make the article "neutral" is itself a BLP policy violation. Given that everyone who supports you every time you come up at AN/I points out your stellar contributions in the BLP area as an example of your benefit to the project, you should absolutely know this. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
No warning to either? Colton Cosmic (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
YRC knew he violated 3RR (except possibly for his BLP exemption claims), and Pdfpdf brought the report against YRC. Why would warnings be necessary?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Warnings aren't always necessary, but sometimes they are appropriate, or at least in the best long term interest of Wikipedia itself. Dennis Brown - © 21:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Darn! A contributor who believes admins ought to warn, and isn't scared to say it in their frontyard! I figure odds are about two in seven that he's an admin. I've read virtually nothing of whatever the heck the quarrel was about, but I saw Youreallycan conscientiously report himself and figure he ought to be unblocked on that basis if no other. Colton Cosmic (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC) PS: Who's administering the admins?
Good thing we have you, a masked fighter of admin abuse. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey Drmies [11], I actually like a sarcastic comment like that because it allows me to know you better. I briefly looked at your user page and I didn't see your face either. Colton Cosmic (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Try the user pages of my previous accounts. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I think it's a bit late for that.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • He's angry. Saying he's going to do something doesn't mean he will do it. And I sympathize. Anyone who defends the integrity of wikipedia content and rules too vigorously gets smacked down for it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Stupid stupid stupid block -- BLPN is a nearly desolate wasteland that YRC often nearly singlehandedly mans. The post here wasn't really about edit-warring -- it was a cry for help, which Bbb23 did the right thing regarding and pitched on the talk page and article. While YRC may have been 3rr applying a block here is stupid letter of the law bureaucracy -- and now the siutation has been escalated instead of deescalated. Please unblock YRC. Nobody Ent 21:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

  • While Ent and I may have different ways of describing it, we share the same perspective here. I don't agree with some of YRC's methods, but I know that his heart was in the right place, even if his head wasn't. I disagree with blocking him without a warning, considering the circumstances. Technically, he violated 3RR, but so did two others I put warning templates on just today. There was an ongoing conversation on the talk page, heated as it was, and I personally feel that a "shot across the bow" would have been sufficient. I personally believe that heated discussion is better than none, and generally just needs a neutral party to keep it on track (ie:Bbb23). The block may be "technically permissible" and within the letter of policy, but I don't think it is in the best interest of Wikipedia. I mean no disrespect to Moreschi nor do I question his good faith in blocking the editors, but I would ask he consider a less drastic solution, such as protecting the page and pushing the two long time editors into dispute resolution or simply allow Bbb23 to mediate, as he has previously proven quite capable in this role. Dennis Brown - © 21:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
My post is not intended as a criticism of Moreschi -- understanding the full context of the situation requires a historical perspective that an editor just coming upon the situation isn't going to have. Nobody Ent 21:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I surely believe you, and hopefully he will as well. I have notified him on his talk page, and qualified my response because I was asking for specific relief, not because he did anything wrong. Blocking without any warning was only one possible option, but not necessarily the best option in this particular case. I am hopeful he will trust the judgement of myself and others in this. Dennis Brown - © 21:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Huh, Ok. Well, I don't see how I or anyone could possibly unblock one without unblocking the other, and this I am not minded to do. It's very clear that they both behaved very badly, edit-warring completely brainlessly while spitting and hissing at each other on the talk page. Such conduct does not exactly maintain a collegial editing atmosphere, and without such an atmosphere this project just does not work. At all.
  • Nor do I see that YRC is so obviously right in this dispute that, or the threat of a severe BLP violation so imminent, that he gets off the hook that way. There are certainly circumstances in which I can envisage not blocking people for 3RR if they were consistently reverting clear and obvious (but non-vandalistic) BLP violations. But this is simply not one of those cases. By the end they were largely warring over trivialities, such as whether or not a supporting statement from the article subject's party leader should be included. That is, one way or another, not a serious BLP issue, and is something editors should be perfectly capable of talking over calmly and rationally on the talkpage without going the balloons going up. I don't know if people have counted the reverts, but I got to YRC being at about 6RR before losing track. In 2012 that's not OK. This isn't 2005 any more, when 48 reverts in a day in one page got you no more than 24 hours off...(true story).
  • YRC seems to me someone who would be entirely prepared to sacrifice not just part of our system of policies and guidelines, but, if necessary, all of it - in order to preserve the remainder. Even making allowances for his frustration, he seems entirely convinced that he must be right and could in no possible world ever be wrong - completely immune to concepts such as compromise, negotiation, and the middle ground. I have been through at least 3 arbitration cases with people like this, who often contributed a good deal of useful encyclopaedic content but whose complete unwillingness to work in a collegial manner led to them getting banned. In at least two of those cases the problem editor was defended in a manner remarkably similar to that which I'm seeing here: "has the encyclopaedia's best interests at heart, etc, etc". This is all and well and good but is completely worthless if someone cannot compromise and work with their fellow editors. And YRC's vast block log under both his current account and that of Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) suggests he has a serious problem with this.
  • Now that both editors have been blocked, the talkpage has calmed down, and the article is being calmly and consensually edited by rational people who have their heads screwed on the right way. This seems like a very good outcome, so why people are advocating that both editors be let off the leash to have at it again I don't know. Why protect the page, which will just stop sensible people from editing while this pair fight it out? It's not as if the article doesn't need improving.
  • I'm open to persuasion, but this is where I'm at right now. LMK what you think. Moreschi (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Oh, and I'm sorry, but saying I "blocked without warning" is just stupid. They obviously knew they were edit-warring, seeing as YRC made this thread here and Pdf created a thread at the 3rr report page. When new/newish editors edit war we warn them before we block to make sure they have actually read the policies on edit-warring and 3RR, so if they keep going they definitely knew they were doing something wrong. That obviously doesn't apply here, these are two experienced contributors who know the rules just fine. Moreschi (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • FWIW, although some will not be happy with me for saying so, I agree with the block. Things have calmed down considerably on the article Talk page. Both blocked editors were inflaming the situation both on the Talk page and in the article. It had gotten completely out of control. Pdfpdf has not commented on the block, but YRC has not helped his case by his post-block comments. Therefore, the block has already served a preventative purpose in ameliorating the content dispute, and hopefully it will serve yet another preventative purpose by giving YRC a chance to cool off and reflect.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Would you (Bbb23) have edited the page if YRC had not initiated this ANI thread? Nobody Ent 22:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • By "the page" I assume you mean the Nikolic article. I was editing the article before this thread. If I recall correctly, my first clue there was a problem with the article was YRC's post at BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • You make a good argument and I reverse my opinion that he should be unblocked. I didn't look at the talk page before, but, doing so now, I see that the issue was both of them and YRC was just as much in the wrong here. SilverserenC 22:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • My goal was simply to bring you here and ask you to reconsider your options and see if there was a better solution that would best serve Wikipedia in dealing with two hard-headed, but long time editors. I do tend to cut some extra slack when 3RR BLP is even a remote possibility, I tend to allow for a greater degree of "heat" in the talk page discussions than others, and my nature is to give credit for someone who brings the issue to ANI themselves. You are not obligated to do the same, obviously. If you decide that blocking is the only, or the best, option, we will just have to disagree, and I won't labor the issue. There are some problems that YRC needs to work on, I am just not convinced that a block is conducive to achieving the end result here. Dennis Brown - © 23:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I think blocking both is certainly the way to achieve the best end result as far as the article is concerned, and I think events would bear me out on this one (as Bbb23 notes). As far as YRC's future editing is concerned - I guess he may take some time out to cool off, but that doesn't seem likely, given his hot-headed threats to sock etc. Like you I doubt blocking is optimal here, but then letting him off the hook is hardly going to help him either when 5 months from now someone gets completely fed up with his unwillingness to negotiate and drags his backside to ArbCom. But I agree he is a concern, as he obviously does valuable work it would be a pity to lose. Maybe once the block is expired we should think about a mentoring agreement? Moreschi (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree that some form of mentoring is in order. Perhaps a few weeks of imprisonment vacation at Pesky's Tea House. I am concerned that the block may make him less receptive, rather than more, but it is easy to see that you and I share the same overall opinions on the matter, even if our ideas on the best solutions differ slightly. He is a valuable asset to Wikipedia most of the time, but it is the rest of the time that worries us both. As I stated, the goal was to consider the total solution here, and in the end, I do think he is a valuable enough contributor to warrant this second look, regardless of what decision you make in the end. Dennis Brown - © 23:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Big picture: YRC should be unblocked because, although he went beyond 3rr -- he caught himself and came here, and had already stopped editing the article after initiating this ANI thread. Blocks are supposed to be preventative -- this one is escalatory. Yes, he goes off from time to time, but sometimes good faith is ignoring excessive rhetoric. Is the block good in the sense that's it's supportable by policy yes. Does it make sense in a bureaurcracy free community? No. Nobody Ent 23:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

This "escalatory not preventative" argument is somewhat undermined by his later claims to be prepared to keep edit-warring, socking if necessary, to get his way. Though I agree we must make allowances for hyperbole.
Big picture: has the dual-block improved the article and the surrounding editing atmosphere? Unequivocally yes. Aren't admin actions taken to improve encyclopedic content a good thing?
And why on earth should we unblock YRC and not Pdf, as you seem to be saying? Both of them acted equally badly, as the most cursory review makes clear. Moreschi (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy; it can't be known whether the editing atmosphere improved because the editors were blocked or because YRC stopped edit warring of his own accord and came here. With regard to pdf I've got no problem with unblocking both editors. Nobody Ent 23:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Stopped edit-warring? His edit made just prior to posting here was yet another revert, done 25 minutes before creating this thread. That's after the big chain of 5/6 reverts about 5/6 hours earlier in the morning. Moreschi (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. Was edit warring (bad). Wasn't caught or 3rr reported, stopped of his own accord (here), and came here seeking assistance.Nobody Ent 00:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
This isn't true either. Pdf filed a report against YRC at WP:EW/N some 5 hours before YRC created this thread. Moreschi (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
The question isn't whether admin actions are a good thing (they are) -- it's what action was the best action to take; I simply don't think that blocking was the best action for the reasons elucidated above. Nobody Ent 00:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
The best action for the article, or the best for YRC? Two different questions. Moreschi (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Neither is particularly important -- the standard should be what is best for Wikipedia as a whole. The answer, of course, is an active YRC acting in accordance with community standards, which was not happening today. The question is what sequence of actions can we as a community take to most likely achieve that aim. Nobody Ent 01:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Coming here was an attempt to get public opinion on his side, a tactic he's used before. His actions on the article are out of line. The more I read the talk page of the article in question, the more I am appalled at YRC's actions here. For example, the positive quote that this ANI discussion was made in regards to was being removed by the other user because the quote was supporting an action that the subject himself stated he never did in the first place. That's why it was being removed and that's a perfectly good reason to remove it. But instead of discussing it on the talk page, YRC began edit warring it in. And it's not just this, but several other things over the past few days that he's refused to properly discuss on the talk page and just edit warred with it. I mean, his first comment on the talk page back on the 11th was "HI - PLEASE DON'T REPLACE CONTENT DISPUTED AT THE NOTICEBOARD WITHOUT CONSENSUS SUPPORT THERE = THANKS - ALSO PLEASE PRESENT YOUR ASSERTED ADDITIONAL RELIABLE CITATIONS THERE FOR INVESTIGATION - THANKS". That was his first comment. It wasn't after others had ignored him and not presented sources, this was his first contribution to the discussion. SilverserenC 23:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Threat to evade bans/blocks[edit]

Could an administrator act on this threat please? Note, the account is currently blocked due to edit warring.[12] For the block log of the previous account, please see this link. Viriditas (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Better to just let things settle -- haste makes waste (Ents just hate hasty actions, you know). Nobody Ent 21:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Finally something amusing in this topic, thanks NE.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of whether the initial block was inappropriate (and I believe I would agree with you, Ent, that it was), this threat to sock, which presumably applies any time he is blocked, is extremely concerning. SilverserenC 21:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
He's angry. Saying he's going to do something doesn't mean he will do it. He's a vigorous defender of BLP's, and sometimes his defense of the rules clouds his practical judgment. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I think the issue is that his defense of the rules too often falls into what his opinion of the rules is and this leads to disruption. And saying he will sock in order to "defend living people against this project" kinda implies that he's not doing it for the benefit of Wikipedia. SilverserenC 22:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
He is simply venting. Reading too much into this is not productive. Even while at the height of rage, his motives are purely about what he thinks is best for Wikipedia, not solely to be disruptive. Allow him the same breathing room you would ask us to give you in the same circumstance. Dennis Brown - © 21:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
What's the point of blocking him if the blocks won't prevent him from edit warring? Viriditas (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Per what I said right above to Bugs, saying "I will still defend living people against this project" means that he isn't doing what's best for Wikipedia, but what he thinks is best for living people in his own opinion. SilverserenC 22:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Which I construe to be what is in the best interest of Wikipedia, as that is the first goal of BLP "Do no harm" here. You just see it differently than I do. Dennis Brown - © 22:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I've always found it amazing that the people who feel it's their mission to protect living people are 1. either omnipotent or capable of mind-reading and 2. can so often treat other Wikipedia users so badly. I've never understood why BLP enforcement has to entail such harsh responses towards the other people who are working to build an encyclopedia. People should be able to have different opinions on what's BLP compliant without having the lowest common denominator screaming "BLP BLP CALL THE WIKICOPS!!!!!!!!" at the top of their lungs every time someone disagrees on one of these matters. My goodness, it's just a fucking website, in the grand scheme of things we probably aren't going to make that huge a difference in a person's life unless they're affiliated with Wikipedia and/or choose to make a huge issue out of it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
That's the defeatist attitude that allows BLP-violators and other kinds of POV-pushers to get their way here. Ask Mr. Wales how much BLP matters. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────In general I agree Blade, although BLPs also can pose a financial and legal burden on the Foundation, so I always say to go the most conservative side of content when it comes to BLPs. I am not a fan of YRC's methods, and I know he isn't a fan of mine, yet here I am. His methods do need some refining, but blocking isn't the means to that end. Dennis Brown - © 22:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not like I've never stood up for BLP when it was necessary (see [13], which was a BLP violation but isn't now because the person in question is now dead), but claiming that calling someone "Professor Emeritus" is a BLP violation on the grounds it makes him sound "old and washed up" (I am not making this up, I can get the thread if you like) is absurd, and that seems to be what "BLP enforcement" largely consists of. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it is probably time for the community to ban Youreallycan for continuing to push his POV that BLP subjects should be treated with respect. With all due respect to Moreschi, this block should have been indef. We don't need people on this project who are more interested in the feelings of people than they are with following the rules. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Good one. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
The joking reverse psychology is just more insulting than anything else, DC. SilverserenC 22:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Two edit-warriors get blocked--what's new? They think they were right--what's new? Rob gets blocked for edit-warring in the defense of the BLP policy (in his opinion) and then blows up and starts saying stupid s**t--what's new? Rob won't be banned (the good outweighs the bad) and all this will blow over. Hopefully, in the meantime someone who cares will look at the article and edit it properly. Moving right along. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • How do you know this "someone who cares" editor actually exists? Are you claiming there are no existing Wikipedia articles which violate our BLP policy? Nobody Ent 22:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Apparently this editor does exist and he is Bbb23, among others. I mean, you're involved on the talk page too, albeit with only the single word comment. SilverserenC 22:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The best way to avoid edit wars on articles is for articles to be decent in the first place. There are plenty of editors who are, but you said "know" where I said "hopefully"--so I don't know jack. And why would you ask me that second question? I've worked on BLP violations for years, sometimes with Rob--I know very well what poor condition that area on WP is in. Where have I suggested that there are no violations?? I apologize for the double question mark, but I can't figure out where you got that from. I also apologize for twice ending a sentence with a preposition. Drmies (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Need a statement reversing sock threat[edit]

We really need Youreallycan to explain the sock threats he made. If they were just made while he was angry, fine. But they can't just sit there ignored, they are too blatant and, admittedly, frightening. A removal of those comments on his talk page by him would go a long way toward showing he didn't mean them. SilverserenC 23:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't be too frightened of YRC socking. For starters, he sticks out like sore thumb and would be caught instantly. "Oh, a new editor, very brazen, has a deep knowledge of BLP and is constantly participating there"..... He knows that, don't take it so seriously. We have dozens of socks roaming through the halls every day and we manage just fine. Dennis Brown - © 23:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • That...does not answer what I said at all. You're saying that we should ignore socks because they exist? SilverserenC 23:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Can't you discuss your point without your last sentence? Insulting, unwarranted, and unnecessary.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)x2 Removed, sorry. I just don't understand how one could defend him to the point of practically saying that socks are okay. SilverserenC 23:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh, I'm not defending him, he isn't a friend. I'm pretty sure he doesn't like me. He openly opposed me at my Request for Admin. I'm doing what I think is the right thing here, nothing more. His personal feelings regarding me aren't related to his contributions at Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - © 23:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Real socks generally don't announce themselves in advance and we already know how to deal with socks when they pop up. Go check SPI daily. His threat is likely an idle one, and he would be easy to spot if he was foolish enough to sock. How you drew your conclusion is beyond me. How you expressed it was unnecessary. Dennis Brown - © 23:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't change the fact that the threat should be reverted by him. We often block for threats of socking and if he refuses to say he didn't mean it, then we should do the same here. SilverserenC 23:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
And he was just blocked a very short time ago. Perhaps we should at least allow his blood pressure to return to normal before putting any further demands on him. Even if you think he is 100% in the wrong, you have to be realistic and understand that people vent when they are blocked. This is typical. Give them a day before you expect them to retract their unfortunate words. It isn't like he is asking for an unblock, and likely is isn't observing your requests at this time anyway. He will eat his words in due time. I'm just saying that you can't take it very seriously at this stage. Had he been indef'ed, I would be more willing to consider the possibility. For now, a little patience is due. Dennis Brown - © 23:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I think we should let this one go. It's far more likely to be just a ragequit along the lines of "ah, you may have blocked me now, but I'll win in the end!". Not to be taken seriously. Plus, if he does sock, as Dennis Brown says, he'll be easily caught and promptly permabanned. Moreschi (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I happen to think the blocks were ill-considered, and YRC's umbrage is pretty understandable in the context of the edits he objected to. Collect (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

  • YRC does stick out like a sore thumb, and has a temper which led to all of this. But he's one of the good guys and cares too much. Plus he knows we know him, and he knows about SPI and all that. Nothing to worry about. Collect, I'm usually with you but not in this case. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I said the other day on one of Jimbo's subpages that before Youreallycan came along, BLPN was a wasteland that had tumbleweeds blowing across it. I do mean that. I would post something there sometimes, and it would be archived without response. Youreallycan is a tower of strength when it comes to lessening the impact of malicious editing on our reputation. I consider him quite as important to Wikipedia's functioning as Moonriddengirl, say, is to copyright matters. BLP policy demands that articles be balanced, and include positive and negative information. Give the man some credit. I very much doubt that he was trying to make the article worse, and I have seen dozens and dozens of hatchet jobs he rescued. The stuff he put in was sourced, [14], and there was nothing supportive of the subject there before. (And Nikolic later admitted he had indeed made the post, and there is a screenshot of it here.) JN466 02:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

And please unblock him as soon as he has calmed down sufficiently. JN466 02:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

And by the way, the whole Facebook paragraph is just WP:ADAM. It's unencyclopedic, recentist, and undue. The whole thing deserves two sentences, if that, not a 200-word paragraph. JN466 02:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

  • JN466 is correct and YRC should be unblocked after cooling down as he is often Wikipedia's only defense against BLP violations. After a very quick look, I'm not sure that exceeding 3RR on BLP grounds was a good idea in the current case, although YRC's instinct is correct: it is massively UNDUE to put a major section on "Facebook posts" in a politician's BLP—the subject "gained international attention" after posting some very tame and understandable (although misjudged) responses to major trolling, and now he has a Wikipedia article that permanently records the 15 minutes of trivia. Johnuniq (talk) 07:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Proposals for community restrictions[edit]

I'm completely unsurprised to see this happening again. I strongly suggest that editors read my comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive730#Behavioral, not topic-based, problem in which I identified five key behaviours that keep getting this editor into trouble:

  • He is often absolutist in his views and appears to consistently see things in black and white.
  • His judgement is often faulty.
  • He personalises disputes to an excessive degree, regarding problems as a personal affront.
  • He has an excessive willingness to escalate, which we've certainly seen on this occasion.
  • He has an insensitive / confrontational approach to discussions, again which we've seen on this occasion.

He accepted my feedback (and we conversed by email as well), saying "Hi I will happily take your comments on board as you offered them, in good faith and from a helpful perspective and although I don't expect moving forward to be as regular a contributor as I have been in the past, I will focus on improving the points you have raised. I agree with most although not quite all of them." Regrettably he doesn't seem to have got anywhere in terms of improving his performance.

Under his old account, Off2riorob (talk · contribs), he was blocked 12 times between March 2009 and November 2011 - an average of about once every three months. Under his current account, Youreallycan (talk · contribs), he has been blocked five times since this January alone - i.e. once a month. In other words, the problem with his behaviour is getting worse. In total he has been blocked once for battlefield conduct, three times for disruptive editing, four times for personal attacks and eight times for edit warring. I know he does useful work in the BLP area but this level of disruption really isn't acceptable, and if it wasn't for the work he does on BLPs I have no doubt that he would have been indeffed long ago. This needs to be resolved. I'm going to suggest a couple of community-imposed restrictions that will address Youreallycan's conduct while allowing him to continue his work on BLPs. Frankly, the alternative is arbitration, as this has gone on for far too long without an adequate resolution. Prioryman (talk) 07:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal 1: 1RR restriction[edit]

At the very least the edit warring has to stop. I therefore propose that the community impose on Youreallycan an editing restriction similar to the one imposed on FellGleaming (talk · contribs) in this discussion, along the lines of:

  • Youreallycan is limited to a maximum of one revert per page in any 24 hour period (excepting removal of obvious vandalism).

Please indicate below whether you support or oppose this proposal. Prioryman (talk) 07:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

  • No. Johnuniq (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes -- as Prioryman says, this is a less costly alternative to arbitration. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose This user has dedicated himself to tirelessly in ensuring that WP:BLP is adhered to throughout Wikipedia. This policy is often not given a significant amount of attention by other users, and User:Youreallycan does a fine job of communicating to others the importance of this policy. When others choose to edit war, despite violating this policy, reversion may become necessary and adding a 1RR restriction will not help. Thank you for taking the time to read these comments. With regards, AnupamTalk 08:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose BLP is of very high importance in wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as it doesn't address the underlying issues. Dennis Brown - © 09:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Colton Cosmic (talk) 11:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose no benefit to project, YRC already subject to 3rr Nobody Ent 11:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Non-utile and inflammatory proposal, apparently based in animus. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Collect. JN466 11:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. It's past time this editor, with his long history of edit warring under two accounts, be reigned in. We cannot and should not tolerate such behavior because he does good work in BLP.
  • This might help but 1) given YRC's large number of defenders who seem blind to the obvious problems with his conduct, it's not going to pass, and 2) it's possibly premature anyway. We do face a serious problem here, but I think some kind of mentoring/supervision would be the way to go first. Moreschi (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I would be willing to do this and have already offered to off-wiki. Waiting for response. Dennis Brown - © 12:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I would be happy to see YRC mentored and in fact I suggested this in an earlier AN/I discussion; the problem is that nobody followed through. I will say, though, that if neither of these proposals passes and if no mentor is found, I think this is heading for arbitration. Prioryman (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Comments by others on proposal 1[edit]
  • Nonsense. Where is the evidence? It's because YRC is often the only person trying to defend against BLP violations that he occasionally flips. Johnuniq (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Non sequitur. Plenty of people are capable of defending BLPs without dragging the community into these endless distractions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I might add that User:Nomoskedasticity has been involved in a disagreement with User:Youreallycan and this should be taken into account when considering User:Nomoskedasticity's comments here. Thanks, AnupamTalk 08:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Long past time that the community begins to address YRC's long history of edit warring and other tendentious-to-confrontational editing. I'm disappointed by the number of editors willing to tolerate his behavior because he does good work in one area, as though a choice must be made. How many editors who might do comparable work in a respectful and collaborative way might he have chased away with the (escalating) behavior we've seen during his tenure on Wikipedia? It's time to revoke YRC's license to be an uncivil edit warrior, and hold him accountable for his behavior. --Drmargi (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal 2: civility restriction[edit]

Similarly I propose that the community impose on Youreallycan a civility restriction similar to the one imposed on Mk5384 (talk · contribs) in this discussion, along the lines of:

  • If Youreallycan makes any comment that is deemed by an administrator to have been uncivil, a personal attack, or an assumption of bad faith, or if Youreallycan otherwise behaves in a uncollegial manner, broadly construed, he may be blocked for up to a week.

Please indicate below whether you support or oppose this proposal. Prioryman (talk) 07:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

  • No. Johnuniq (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose In my interactions with User:Youreallycan, I have found him to be one of the most civil editors whom I have ever encountered on this WikiProject. I even recently awarded him a barnstar for a random act of kindness he showed me. Adding a civility restriction when one is definitely not needed here would be inappropriate. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 08:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose BLP is of very high importance in wikipedia. Next to BLP, "Civility" is nothing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as technically any admin can already do that now, so I fail to see the point. Dennis Brown - © 09:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose no justification for such a restriction; YRC is already subject to existing civility policy and violations are best handled with judgement on a case by case basis. Nobody Ent 11:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Animus R Us seems the only basis therefor. Collect (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Colton Cosmic (talk) 11:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Collect, again. --JN466 12:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support, as above. It's time he is held accountable for all his actions, not just praised for the good ones while a blind eye is turned to the bad. --Drmargi (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Comments by others on proposal 2[edit]
  • Nonsense. Where is the evidence? It's because YRC is often the only person trying to defend against BLP violations that he occasionally flips. Johnuniq (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
    • WP:CIVIL is a policy. Following it isn't optional, and ORR/YRC has a long history of not doing so. It is very sad that a productive editor comes to something like this, but there's a point for anyone where no level of productive contribution will outweigh disruption to the project. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
      • BLP is about a thousand times more important than "civility". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Without civility we don't have a community. Without a community we can't hope to enforce BLP. Allowing people to behave sociopathically so long as they do hard work in a given area ultimately makes things harder for us, not easier. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
          • Without BLP enforcement, we put ourselves at risk of a lawsuit, and then we don't have a wikipedia at all. Oh, and labeling someone a "sociopath" is a pretty severe personal attack in itself; but over time I've observed that you're pretty good at leveling personal attacks. Fix your own civility issues before you criticize the alleged incivility of others. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I would just like to comment that making the following proposals and remarks about User:Youreallycan when he is currently blocked and unable to defend himself is not kind. I would encourage the individuals here to allow User:Youreallycan to elaborate on his perspective. Perhaps the reviewing administrator could unblock him and allow him to do so here. I am confident that User:Youreallycan will be friendly and generous when explaining the situation from his point of view. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 08:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

  • YRC has some civility issues and they can't be overlooked, but I don't think a narrowly defined "silver bullet" is going to address them here. What is needed is a little mentoring on civility. YRC is an excellent contributor that simply doesn't know when to back off, even when he is right. He tends to get too emotionally involved and needs to learn to step back and detach from the issue at hand. None of these solutions address this. He has to choose to be part of the solution in order for it to work. Imposing it from the outside is not likely to be effective with an experienced editor like this. He isn't a child that needs to be scolded, he is a passionate and otherwise productive contributor that needs to address his own shortcomings with the support of the community. Dennis Brown - © 09:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
    • "Not a child" cuts both ways. We shouldn't have to hold his hand while he discovers the ability to refrain from pointless drama. NOTTHERAPY and all that. Edit warring *does not work* and is always counterproductive. FWIW we've lost editors who were more often on the right side of a given debate than YRC before (MickMacNee, for instance: behaviour aside, I can't actually remember ever disagreeing with him on any particular point, whereas most of the current anti-civility divas are both hostile towards anyone who disagrees with them, and wrong much of the time) and survived. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Labeling the editor a "sociopath" disqualifies you from this discussion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I would disagree in part by simply stating that sometimes we do hold the hand of another editor, if they show a willingness to want to fix the problem. I don't know if this is the case here, but I will extend every opportunity to him until he makes it clear that he doesn't want to fix the issues. That said, he has to demonstrate a willingness to change his behavior for my good faith to be stretched to this limit. Time will tell. Dennis Brown - © 11:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Civility restrictions are rarely helpful save in the most flagrant and obvious cases. Moreschi (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Can someone please link me to the RfC/U's for the user? Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Off2riorob and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Youreallycan are still red links as never having been created. I would think that an user who is as well established as this one would at least receive the good faith to have dispute resolution steps lower than the sanctions mentioned here and above. The sanctions proposed would significantly hamper the process of enforcing BLP due to the fact that the IP editors can hop and game around the restriction on the user. Hasteur (talk) 11:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • As far as I know he hasn't had an RfC/U done yet, but he has had massive amounts of feedback on AN/I and elsewhere, and multiple editors have offered him guidance. It doesn't seem to have had much effect, regrettably. I don't agree that a civility restriction is likely to hamper him - why would he need to be incivil in BLP editing? A 1RR restriction will allow him to revert obvious vandalism. However, he's already shown repeatedly that when he gets into a revert war the red mist descends and he gets blocked. After eight blocks for revert warring, how many more learning opportunities does he need? The obvious answer to that is to require him not to revert more than once. If he sees something that needs to be reverted more than once, he can always ask someone else to do it. I'll do it, if he asks me. But he shouldn't be putting himself into a position where a descent into revert warring becomes a possibility. Prioryman (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • As Arbcom is fond of saying, Administrator's Noticeboard isn't Dispute Resolution. See the RfC/U as an opportunity to lay all the cards on the table at one location so there's absolutely no doubt to YRC what the problems are. I'm sure you would wanted to be presented with the same list of complaints prior to serious discussions about sanctions, right? Hasteur (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Alternative proposal[edit]

We call an end to WP:ADAM, get serious about wanting to be an encyclopedia rather than a tabloid aggregator, and get a few admins to hang out at BLPN rather than here and actually use WP:BLPBAN to warn and block editors who use Wikipedia to take their animus out on various BLP subjects and write coatracks and hatchet jobs.

Flagged revisions wouldn't be bad either, but this would do for a start. --JN466 12:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

All good, but it doesn't do anything to address the conduct problems that are resulting in YRC notching up one block a month. What are your suggestions for dealing with that? Prioryman (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
YRC is notching up a block a month because in his work at BLPN, he is typically opposed by several editors whose editing is directly responsible for the article coming up at BLPN, and who are reverting articles back into a non-compliant state. Again, if admins made BLPN patrol a priority, and warned editors who are not editing in compliance with policy, this would relieve a lot of the stress on YRC. --JN466 21:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

YRC promised not to sock or edit-war, in future. It's unblocking time. GoodDay (talk) 12:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

He has promised many times not to edit-war in future. What has changed? How are we going to avoid another such situation? I'm looking for suggestions here. Prioryman (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
My suggestion is that you have a large cup of tea. Your proposals seem to engender essentially zilch support from others, so the "situation" does not appear to others to be quite as life-threatening as you appear to see it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


As Youreallycan has clearly indicated they "get it", and is showing a willingness to voluntarily accept sanctions on their talk page, I suggest we wrap up this part of the exercise. He has assured us that he has no intention of socking, as I expected he would. I have offered to assist him in developing better methods for dealing with disputes, and while he hasn't accepted outright, he has shown a willingness to work with me and others to find a long term solution, and I will continue to work with him on an ongoing basis, to the extent that he will allow. As for unblocking or leaving the block in place, I will leave that to the blocking admin to determine, as he is fully capable of reviewing the situation and determining the best course of action using his own judgement without any further input from me on the issue. I am convinced YRC does understand the problem. Where he goes from here is up to him. At this time, it is my opinion that no further action is needed beyond those I have already mentioned. Dennis Brown - © 14:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

    • He has accepted mentoring, updated to reflect this. Dennis Brown - © 15:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Dennis. For those who have followed the discussions on YRC's Talk page, he has indeed calmed down and stated that his sock threats were in the heat of anger and he was venting. In particular, Dennis and YRC have been discussing different community-acceptable possibilities for when YRC can edit again. I think we should drop this and move on. I might also add that none of the proposed restrictions on YRC above has been supported by a consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I would agree except this has happened time and time again. YRC gets on a tear about BLP, he insults or edit wars, and then he "gets it". Rinse and repeat. Let the block stick or we'll be back here again. AniMate 15:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
In my post above I almost commented on this perspective, which is understandable. How much leeway we give an editor who engages in repetitive disruptive behavior is, of course, a judgment call, but it should take into account, as others have mentioned, how much repetitive constructive behavior the editor also engages in. With YRC, there's a tremendous amount of that. His contributive vigilance is prolific. I haven't paid that much attention to his pace recently, but I used to get tired just watching him. I might also add that my sense is although YRC does still lose it, as here, he appears to be more and more amenable to change. In my view, there has been some real movement by him in a positive direction. I don't think his latest positive comments on his Talk page are insincere. I think he should be given the opportunity to progress. All that said, I would allow the 72-hour block to expire on its own - I wouldn't unblock him. He's using that time productively to reflect and to discuss how to move forward.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
On a side note...I wouldn't be too quick to say that YRC has a good handle on BLP. His opinions on BLP are at times idiosyncratic with both the letter and spirit of BLP. The strained logic displayed at Wikipedia:BLPN#Adam_Yauch are a recent example. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think a blow-by-blow analysis of YRC's application of BLP policy serves any productive purpose, particularly the one you cite, an unsual situation and one where you disagreed with YRC. BLP policy is not the easiest to interpret and apply, and many experienced editors can disagree in any particular case. If we start scrutinizing each article in which YRC was involved, we might as well open up a new noticeboard devoted to YRC.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
For the record, the specific steps that have been taken are that (1) Dennis Brown has kindly offered to act as YRC's mentor, which YRC has agreed to; and (2) that YRC has agreed to my suggestion that he voluntarily observe a 1RR restriction. In addition, Dennis and I have both offered to counsel YRC if he encounters difficulties in the BLP area in future. This offers a pretty good basis to go forward without further incidents. Given this agreement I've closed my earlier proposal for community sanctions. Prioryman (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
When his block expires, please attempt to counsel him whenever issues relating to Judaism and homosexuality come up. He seems to have some real problems dealing with both, and his intransigence can at times be detrimental to collegial editing. AniMate 18:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm aware there've been issues with both matters in the past, though I'm not sure whether these have just been heat of the moment issues or indications of a more serious underlying attutude problem. Regardless, we'll keep an eye on it. Prioryman (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Unblock both proposal[edit]

It's been enough time, they get it, we get it. They both need to stop edit warring and use the talk page or other dispute resolution channels. Should edit warring happen again from either of them, normal blocks should follow Regardless of any of this nonsense that YRC should get a free pass because of BLP. Anyways, I propose an unblock of both User:Youreallycan and User:Pdfpdf as time served. I'm not sure if someone has done this already anyways, but it's best to just make it official. SilverserenC 21:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I concur with the unblock request. There are now measures in place to try to prevent a recurrence of YRC's actions and he is aware of the need to change his approach. I think the block's served its purpose by now. Prioryman (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I still oppose, at least in regards to YRC. You say he "get's it." Well he's supposedly "gotten it" multiple times before, and yet here we are again. I think a loud and clear message needs to be sent to him that he needs to change his behavior. Since he clearly didn't get it from the numerous previous blocks, I think this one should stick. AniMate 21:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, he has too many buddies on-wiki to do that. I'm willing to give his edit warring and incivility one last chance, but the next time this happens, I am going to vigorously oppose unblocking. SilverserenC 21:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I hear you. I've told him that this is the last chance saloon for him and the next stop is arbitration. If it comes to that, I'll file a case myself. Claims that his BLP work excuse persistent edit warring will get shot down pretty quickly there, I can assure you. Prioryman (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
It's not like he's blocked indefinitely. It's 72 hours. Wikipedia, YRC's buddies, and the BLPs can survive 3 days without him editing. There have been way too many "next times". This doesn't need to go to arbitration and he needs to stay blocked. AniMate 21:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Suggest checking with the admin who blocked, at a minimum. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Both knowingly edit warred and knew they shouldn't, and they're solid blocks. Besides neither has posted an unblock request or edited for several hours. I don't understand the rush to unblock. AniMate 21:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
To be honest I'm indifferent about whether the block is lifted now or left to expire naturally. It doesn't really make much difference either way. I think Silver's point above is simply that the block (at least in YRC's case) doesn't seem to have much of a useful purpose to it now that the issue seems to have been resolved. Or to put it another way, it's now more punitive than preventative. Prioryman (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
That's where we'll have to disagree. These issues have been resolved before. Promises to change have been made. He's agreed to leave topics and to reform and here we are again. Keeping him blocked is preventative, because each and every time he's been unblocked we end up back here. Blocks lose all meaning if they are lifted because of promises that are made and not kept. If you really think his behavior has been problematic, let him sit out this block because there have been way to many "next time the block will stick." AniMate 22:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
At this point it's moot as he's been unblocked based on conditions he's agreed to. I don't think it's a big deal that he's been unblocked. Nor do I think it would have been a big deal if he'd sat out the remainder of the block. However, because AniMate seems to be alone (publicly at least) in his position on this issue, I feel I should say that my views coincide with his. Nonetheless, I sincerely hope we won't be back here in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:27, 15 May 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.

Iloveandrea continued personal attacks.[edit]

Iloveandrea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Iloveandrea continue to attack other users in his last attack he calls other users racist and accusing them part of some faction or having agenda. Its not the first time that this user a attacking others he was already brought to AN/I.

--Shrike (talk) 07:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Exaggeration. His edits are usually good. His talk comments are colorful, but so is a rainbow. Do you hate rainbows? Who, who hates rainbows? Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 07:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL is a policy. Policies are not optional. - The Bushranger