Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:00, 13 June 2010

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

User:Snottywong/userboxes/ARSbackfire

I'm starting this here because I've been involved with the user on one AfD. The userbox (which I've already nominated for MfD indicates this user's intention (which he's carried out on over 20 articles earlier this evening) to !vote to delete in any article that's been nominated for deletion, and hence for rescue. In many cases, he has added ARSnote early in the discussion, giving the false impression that the article had been flagged for rescue that early in the discussion.

I'd request that the user be formally admonished for such behavior and directed to participate in a collegial, rather than overtly partisan manner in the future. Jclemens (talk) 05:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Tell me you didn't use your tools to revert all his edits. I can see you did, but what were you thinking? AniMate 05:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

And upon further investigation I see you are in an ongoing dispute with him. Unacceptable. AniMate 05:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what he did. See my complaint below at Misplaced Pages:ANI#User:Jclemens abuse of rollback rights. Jclemens claims that I blindly vote to delete every page listed on ARS. However, he is fully aware that I have voted to Keep several articles listed on ARS, and I have skipped over others that I couldn't conclusively determine a vote for. His comments on my user talk page prove that he was aware of this. The rest of my comments on this matter can be found below in my own complaint. SnottyWong talk 05:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please explain to me how I could possibly be aware that you reviewed articles for deletion and didn't comment one way or the other on them. Which ones were those? Jclemens (talk) 05:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

So, AniMate, let's explore that. Did I block him? Nope. Did I unilaterally topic ban him? No, but I did ask him to discuss here before continuing. Did I change anything related to the one AfD on which we're actually in dispute? Nope. Am I an ARS member? Nope. Was I the one who threw the {{rescue}} on the article related to the one AfD on which we're actually in dispute? Nope. So, how much more uninvolved do you really want me to be in the face of reactive disruption?

So really, here's the sequence of actions:

1) I rescued an article.

2) He !voted delete after I'd added reliable sources.

3) I pointed out how his efforts failed to dis-establish notability.

4) He went and !voted delete on a ton of other {{rescue}}'ed articles.

5) He created a userbox touting his efforts and their motivation.

6) I MFD'ed the userbox, reverted the AfD's in which I was uninvolved, and brought my actions here for discussion.

Again... how is this me becoming emotional or misusing tools? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I am a tad concerned that an older user with a totally uneventful edit history suddenly became almost 100% involved in deleting articles on 28 March 2010, almost as though he were a totally different editor. Out of the last hundred AfDs he has !voted on, he has a total of 5 "keep" !votes. From March 2007 to 26 October 2009, he was absent from AfD entirely. I fear that by so acting as a pure predictable !vote, and becoming known, that his !votes will achieve the same value as Ikip's did on the other side. Collect (talk) 12:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you think the account has been highjacked? Unlike Ikip, Snottywong gives valid reasons for his opinion, and hasn't been disruptive. Verbal chat 12:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Jclemens abuse of rollback rights

ALSO SEE Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Jclemens ZacharyLassiter (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Jclemens has taken it upon himself to rollback all of my recent !votes on multiple, unrelated AfD's (approximately 20 of them). His reasons for doing this are the following:

1. He has interpreted a personal userbox that I recently created as a de facto admission of guilt to bad faith editing.
2. He has become emotional during an argument we've been having on an AfD for (presumably) one of his articles: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up.

Jclemens has not made any attempts to contact me for an explanation of my userbox prior to rolling back all of my !votes (unless you count the MfD he started on the userbox). Furthermore, this message he left on my user talk page proves that he is fully aware that I have voted to both to keep and delete the various AfD's in question, which proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that I have not been editing in bad faith. These keep votes were made long before any of this happened, and long before the userbox was created.

It's apparent that Jclemens is letting his emotions get the best of him, and using his rollback rights to act on those emotions. I respectfully request that all of the rollbacks he has performed on my edits be undone. Whether or not his rollback rights are taken away (or some other punitive action is taken) is not something I can comment on, but I will leave that up to the admins who can better make that judgement. SnottyWong talk 05:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I've skimmed the edits he reverted. All were reasonable delete or keep comments, with rationales that showed Snottywong had actually looked at the articles. Personally, I think you should ditch the userbox, but Jclemens pretty clearly abused his tools here. I'd undo his reversions but I'm going to be off for about an hour. If nothing has changed when I get back, I'll undo them myself. AniMate 05:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no question in my mind, AniMate, that many of his rationales were otherwise appropriate. The rate, focus, and virtually unanimous skew of his !votes, combined with the initial version of his userbox, clearly show bad faith. Jclemens (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the rate focus, and skew do not imply bad faith. Come on. If SnottyWong's single goal in life is to prune wikipedia of non-notable pages, and he's found a way to find such pages, then there is nothing bad faith about that. The box is arguably an attack, but even that does not imply bad faith. Please assume good faith. ErikHaugen (talk) 03:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

1) Please post diffs that you allege show me "becoming emotional".

2) I did, in fact, contact you after I had reverted your disruptive edits. Please highlight a requirement that disruptive editors be contacted before their disruptive edits are corrected.

(Interjection by DustFormsWords) - WP:AGF suggests you probably shouldn't be declaring edits disruptive at all until you've talked to the person who made them.

(response to interjection: You may feel free to insert "which I perceived to be", if you prefer) Jclemens (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

3) Prior to this discussion you have changed your userbox to be less directly offensive. Let the record show that I interpreted the prior version of the userbox as prima facie evidence of bad faith, not the revised version.

4) My rollback rights are not a discrete privilege; as an administrator, I would have to be desysop'ed for them to be removed.

Overall, if the user is going to be less blatant about blanket !voting deletion on anything flagged for rescue (With the exception of Upstate New York, which proves nothing) and going to fade into the rest of the deletionist camp, then there's really nothing particularly actionable here. But !voting in ONLY debates flagged for rescue, doing so in an overwhelming one-sided manner, and explicitly stating in a userbox the ARS-centric motivation for doing so is disruptive editing. Jclemens (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• From my (non-admin) perspective having come into the matter, they were bad reverts, admittedly triggered by what was (at that time) a pretty inflammatory userbox. Jclemens doesn't appear to be escalating the matter (other than in the heated response above), it's certainly far short of being worthy of a block or a de-adminning, so surely there's not much to be done here other than ask everyone to consider more friendly ways of interacting in future? - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Jclemens, please undo your rollbacks. There is indeed something actionable here, but it isn't Snottywong's edits, or even his userbox. Your argument is defeated by the fact that we have dozens of different ways that deletion discussions are sorted and lists created all over the place. There's no difference in someone electing to participate in discussion where the ARS has tagged an article, and electing to participate only in discussions about history, biography, transport, LGBT issues, or Hornepayne. Frankly, I am hard-pressed to understand why you think misusing one administrator tool is different than misusing another. Risker (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

So, Risker, if a user were to follow every LGBT AfD, !vote delete on most of them, and then created and placed on their user page a Userbox saying how proud he was to be reducing the homosexual influence on Misplaced Pages, that would be OK? I gotta disagree. Jclemens (talk) 06:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

A (very) brief search through the ANI incident archive reveals that this may not be the first time that people have had a problem with Jclemens' actions as an administrator. Perhaps a review of his adminship is in order after all. I have not gone through the past complaints in detail as I'm about to get off for the night and go to sleep. I will take a look in more detail tomorrow to see if there is a pattern in the past complaints. If anything, it's obvious from his comments above and his continual arguing that he still doesn't understand what he did wrong, despite the fact that no one has taken his side yet. SnottyWong talk 05:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

So, rather than defending your edits, you'd rather this focused on the person who cleaned up your disruption? Yeah. All past complaints on my administrative actions are available for public view.... Including all the people who've previously commented there, for instance. I welcome the scrutiny. Jclemens (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Snottywong seems to have voted perfectly normally in all the AFDs that he was involved in, he included a vote, and a valid and pertinent policy reason. His edits at AFD were not IMO in any way disruptive. On the other hand, you've gone through and removed a whole bunch of votes based entirely on his philosophy expressed on a completely different page. This is both wikistalking and disrupting the AFD process.- Wolfkeeper 06:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

So you don't view the expressed motivation for the edits to "counteract the implicit canvassing by the Article Rescue Squadron" to be in any way disruptive? That is, even when editors are clearly acting in a partisan fashion, as long as they follow the letter of the law, they're OK? Isn't that what WP:POINT is all about? Jclemens (talk) 06:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Just revert the reverts, Jclemens. Even if you were right about bad faith, this wasn't the appropriate action to have taken. The closing admins are on the whole sharp cookies that I have a lot of respect for, and they're not going to be tricked into unwarranted deletions by spurious arguments. If an AfD turns on something Snottywong said it will be because it was a good argument, and that's the best reason for letting them remain I can think of. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, for what it's worth, my impression of the whole matter is that Snottywong got frustrated with other editors (as we all do from time to time) and created a userbox expressing that frustration. When it was pointed out to him the userbox was offensive, he immediately changed it. It doesn't indicate anything more than very natural emotions, a momentary lapse of judgement, and a general willingness to work in harmony with an often difficult community. Extrapolating it into a series of bad faith edits is, itself, something that overlooks the principle of assuming good faith. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You left out the bit where he jumped into more than a score of AfD's flagged for rescue with the expressed purpose of deleting them in between the part where he got frustrated and created the userbox. Other than that, I don't disagree with your summary. Jclemens (talk) 07:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If he'd gone through and just typed "Delete not notable" or similar next to every rescue-tagged AfD, then you might have a point about WP:POINT. But on the ones I've looked at, he did include valid rationales (i.e. on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/ZipcodeZoo he says "All refereces are primary" and he's right). So it wasn't just a case of blind !voting - I note he took over an hour to comment at all those AfDs. You can argue about the motivation behind it, but you can't remove valid comments based on your own opinion of his motivation, I'm afraid. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Spending an hour sounds like a lot of work... but then you consider he !voted in over 20 (anyone feel like counting the exact number?) and has asserted that he looked over more rescue-flagged AfDs and didn't comment in them. I've never disputed that he included valid rationales, just pointed out his disruption in doing what he did. Jclemens (talk) 07:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:POINT is when you're actually disrupting the wikipedia by actually doing something you disagree with to prove the point. Following the letter and maybe spirit of the rules is to be admired; trying to keep every single article because it might, someday, be reliably sourced, even though it isn't at the moment (which is more where some of the ARS are coming from) really isn't on. We need rules in the Misplaced Pages, they minimise arguments.- Wolfkeeper 06:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't make this about the ARS. This is about Jclemens abusing his administrative tools. AniMate 06:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no. We're here because I requested a review of my remediation of User:Snottywong's disruption. The fact that some want to focus this on me isn't particularly unexpected, though. Jclemens (talk) 07:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This isn't the first time Jclemens has used tools unwisely to "defend" the ARS (of which I am a member). He should revert and be asked not to use his tools in this area again except in cases of obvious and clear disruption. Verbal chat 07:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This was obvious and clear disruption. Again, I'm not an ARS member and never will be. Jclemens (talk) 07:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Claiming that you are not a member, when you are so closely tied to the ARS, does not make you uninvolved and is not particularly convincing. Please justify the clear and obvious disruption with diffs in the section you created below. Verbal chat

I'll agree there was obvious and clear disruption... from you Jclemens. His AfD votes were supported by policy, and you have zero support for your actions. Undo them now, please. AniMate 07:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't object to someone else reinserting those edits, but if you want me to do them myself, I need to be convinced that the edits are themselves not disruptive, not merely that my actions were out of proportion to the disruption. That may seem like hairsplitting, but I won't re-do edits that I personally believe are disruptive. Jclemens (talk) 07:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Time to start answering some questions

I've directed questions in the above thread to a number of users. If anyone would care to convince me that my actions were incorrect, the way to do that is by engaging in civil discourse. I would welcome it if any editors, and not simply the original editors to whom those questions were addressed would focus on my position that Snottywong's edits were in bad faith and disruptive. Once his actions have been appropriately evaluated by the community, then we can look at what I did in response to them. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please justify removing AFD !votes that had valid and relevant rationales. Verbal chat 07:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The edits were expressly made in bad faith, as evidenced by the original version of the userbox under discussion. I rolled them back as disruptive and explained my rationale to the affected editor. Jclemens (talk) 07:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did not check all of the diffs, but , , & do show an irresponsible use of rollback. Rollback is used to revert vandalism and vandalism only. The edits you reverted are clearly not vandalism. The Misplaced Pages definition of vandalism is very narrow; and in these 4 cases you silenced Snottywong's comments on the AfD. That is disruptive editing, as your edits represented a damage to open discourse. > RUL3R_>vandalism 07:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be operating from a position that those were legitimate edits, which I do not. I have never called them vandalism, I have called them disruptive. Jclemens (talk) 07:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Under what criteria is it disruptive? I see a valid !vote with a proper rationale. If adding {{ARSnote}} is disruptive to you, you discuss with the user. You do not rollback every edit the user makes. > RUL3R_>vandalism 07:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"Rollback should be used only for reverts that are self-explanatory – such as removing obvious vandalism; to revert content in your own user space; or to revert edits by banned users who are not allowed to edit." The edits you reverted do not fall under that description. Jafeluv (talk) 07:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You're referring to the user-level rollback policy. I rolled back his disruptive actions as an administrator who was uninvolved with the AfD's in question. Is there an assertion there that all administrator use of the "rollback" button is restricted by WP:ROLLBACK? I've never understood that to be the expectation. Jclemens (talk) 07:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The principle is the same. Do not wikilawyer. > RUL3R_>vandalism 07:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Umm, what? Of course the policy applies to administrators as well. Where did you get the idea that it didn't? Jafeluv (talk) 07:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a claim that rules don't apply to admins is going to go down very well. Verbal chat 07:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This is why RfA can't have nice things. > RUL3R_>vandalism 07:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I find it amusing that the guy succeded 80-2-3 > RUL3R_>vandalism 07:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

wat Jafeluv (talk) 08:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

HAHA, sorry, my bad. I meant this. Still amusing though, 77/2/0. > RUL3R_>vandalism 08:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

For reference, the reverted AfD !votes can be seen here. Jclemens also warned the user on their talk page, saying "Were I not already involved with you on one discussion, I would have already blocked you for disruptive editing." Jafeluv (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

To answer a question you posed to me (So, how much more uninvolved do you really want me to be in the face of reactive disruption?) If you're to involved to block, you're too involved to do mass rollback. I want you actually uninvolved. AniMate 07:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I have yet to see anything which justifies Jclemens actions, and he has admitted to being involved in a dispute with this editor about AFD. Jclemens, please stop this and don't do anything like it again. Verbal chat 07:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"Stop" what? I've not done anything related to the user or dispute in question since I raised the issue here. Jclemens (talk) 07:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

By "stop" I mean undo your actions and either apologise or withdraw gracefully, and not repeat such disruptive tool use in relation to the ARS ever again. Verbal chat 07:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That's an odd usage of stop. I will apologize when and if I am ever convinced that my actions were wrong in that Snottywong's behaviour was not disruptive. So, if you want an apology for him... by all means, address the topic of his actions, rather than my response. Jclemens (talk) 07:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you noticed how much support your actions have? Unless you are able to show how each one was disruptive, please undo your rollbacks (which also broke rollback rules). Verbal chat 07:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The rollbacks have already been reverted by myself and others, except one that had already been closed. I've asked Sandstein to revisit the closure, just in case it would have affected the result. Jafeluv (talk) 08:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This would be a while different issue if Snottywong had just gone ahead and voted delete on all the articles while giving simple reasons. However, looking at his edits, it looks like he indeed did look into the subject and voted reasonably. His votes were, in my view, clearly not vandalism or disruptive. He was participating the the AfD process legitimately. Regarding his userbox, I believe his changing of it after receiving a notice shows that he is acting in good faith and has no intention to disrupt Misplaced Pages. Netalarm 07:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, there has been no evidence presented of any wrongdoing by Snottywong, whereas Jclemens misuse of rollback has not drawn any support. Verbal chat 07:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing others' comments in an AfD is not a step to take lightly. Even !votes cast by sockpuppets are typically just stricken, with an explanation. Removing !votes cast by someone whose philosophy you disagree with is a very troubling lapse of judgement. I understand that you were concerned about the userbox, and starting the MfD was not an inappropriate response. However, moving on to mass rollback -- apparently without awaiting any response from the editor in question or any answer to your "Is this disruptive?" question -- is very questionable. That you still do not appear to believe you've done anything questionable is... baffling, frankly. This isn't good conduct for an admin. Shimeru 09:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Can we ratchet down the hysteria?

Okay, we all know that Jclemen's use of rollback was wrong and that DRV is going to overturn and relist any AFD closed as keep if it has been tainted by having a vote struck, but am I the only one who thinks this is wholly uncharacteristic for an experienced, sensible and very well balanced editor? Please can we step back and give Jclemens space to review his actions and hopefully self correct without the pressure that this bout of ANI hysteria has injected into this dispute? I can't help worrying that something is affecting Jclemens and that we need to avoid making it worse. Spartaz 08:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

He decided to rollback 20 or so edits by a user who didn't do anything wrong. If he wasn't an administrator, his rollback would be removed. Administrators shouldn't be held to a different standard. AniMate 08:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Not arguing at all that he was right in his actions. Spartaz 08:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact, administrators should have a higher standard. Admins are trusted by the community as a whole, whereas rollbackers only need the trust of 1 admin. > RUL3R_>vandalism 08:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean support above, but anyway I'm willing to give jclemens more time to cool off and then explain his actions. Verbal chat 08:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I should have phrased that as a question, apologies to AniMate. Verbal chat 08:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries. AniMate 08:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC)I appreciate your willingness to stand back a bit and give Jclemens some space. Ratcheting down here will help and there are plenty of DR options available if given them space to think doesn't help. Anyway, thanks again for listening and being reasonable. Spartaz 08:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, let's give him some rest. But I would support a temporary suspension on rollback on AfD, at least until this matter is resolved. > RUL3R_>vandalism 08:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Put it this way; if he does it again before the matter is resolved, a more serious remedy would be considered. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, any repetition would probably lead to summary desysopping which is a significant enough act that we shouldn't allow the ANI lynchmob to add extra pressure on Jclemens that might further erode their good-judgement. That's why I'm asking for space. Spartaz 08:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is looking for his head, but an admission that this was a wrong action would go a long way to shutting this down. If he's unwilling after some time to reflect... AniMate 08:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this was a very serious breach of the trust we place in administrators to commit to the principles of Misplaced Pages. Reverting !votes on AFD is implicitly assuming bad faith, and in the situation there was very little justification. Rollback should only be used against vandalism, and it was simply cowboy adminship to resort to it in this situation. If Jclemens is unwilling to apologise or at least understand that he has made a mistake here, I think his position in the community should be re-evaluated. Thanks. Claritas § 12:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Can I ask what the people posting to this ANI hope to achieve? Going on at length here is likely to ratchet up the drama level. If there is actionable evidence of misuse of admin rights, JClemens should be subjected to a request for comment in the first instance. Stifle (talk) 12:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
• (And I'm not saying this because Jclemens's actions were appropriate; they weren't, but a long dramatic discussion here helps nobody.) Stifle (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Part of the problem is that if this weren't an admin they would have had their rollback rights removed pronto, and there wouldn't be any more drama. The appearance of this is that being an admin means you are protected if you misuse tools. Quantpole (talk) 12:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
    • No arguments from me on that one. But if it is desired that Jclemens should be subject to a sanction, RFC or RFAR is the appropriate place for this. Stifle (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
• (EC) It looks like User:Jafeluv has already reversed all the rollbacks, so that part of the issue is dealt with. The problem with it being done at all is two-fold: first, as already well noted, this was a wholly inappropriate use of rollback. If Jclemens felt Snottywong's AfD comments were disruptive, he should have left a note or struct them, but only if he had been an uninvolved editor. Considering the back and forth between these two at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up, it was wholly inappropriate for Jclemens to take action against Snottywong in any way at all. Rather, he should have done what he did finally do here, leave a note (though far more neutrally noted and with a better dose of WP:AGF) here so that a neutral admin could review the situation. As for his complaints against Snottywong, I think Jclemens did over react and let his issue from the AfD spill over into his view of the edits. Like others, I reviewed Snottywong's comments, and all were grounded in policy and showed that he did actually look at the articles and issues in question. This is not a newer editor doing rampant deletes or keeps, and he wasn't doing a copy/paste blast. The userbox, while amusing, was probably a bad idea while in the middle of doing AfD reviews, but I can at least understand Snottywong's frustration. Some basic civil discourse would have likely gone a long way here versus rolling back and then MfDing the box. I agree, the hysteria is over the top and it seems several folks calling for rollback rights to be removed do not realize that it is technically impossible without desysopping (which most of the same folks seem to agree is going too far). I think the main thing needed now is for Jclemens to take a step back (hopefully with a good night of sleep) and see how his actions seem inappropriate, admit the error, and move on. My non-adminny view. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• The fact that Jclemens continues to not admit the error is what is causing this discussion to continue and escalate. The fact that he performed the rollbacks is one thing, and could be chalked up to a mistake or emotions getting out of hand. The fact that he is an admin on Misplaced Pages, and he still cannot see or admit that he did something wrong is what is truly troubling. I find it hard to believe that an admin can't understand that a userbox is an opinion. It might be humorous, it might be totally fictional or false. You can't base your actions as an admin on someone's userbox. If I create a userbox that says "This user likes to kill infants by twisting their heads until they pop off", then you can't use your CheckUser permissions to find out my IP address, call up my ISP and find out my address, and call the police to come arrest me. Userboxes aren't evidence of anything (even if they are poorly worded and are suggestive of an admission of bad faith edits), especially when there is other evidence which suggests that my edits are not in bad faith. SnottyWong talk 16:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
• To be honest I think that the ARS system is a primary cause of this. It is actually a form of canvas, you're inviting people to an AFD to vote keep; and it pushes the idea that you shouldn't ever delete anything. That's not... it... we have standards. We have to have standards. The ARS needs to be watered down, I agree that if articles can be rewritten or improved then they should do that before the AFD closes, but the guys from ARS (including Jclemens in the particular AFD that triggered this) are fairly consistently voting to keep articles that have no reliable sources at all; on the grounds that it 'might' be referenced later. On that basis absolutely any unreferenced article can be kept forever. We're supposed to be summarising reliable sources not unreliable sources. That needs to stop right here, right now.- Wolfkeeper 17:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC/U?

ALSO SEE Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Jclemens

• Being somewhat new to the world of admins abusing their tools, I have not yet had the privilege of contributing to a RfC or RfArb. I would like the opinion of other uninvolved users here as to whether a discussion on this matter should be started at WP:RFC/U. It appears that this behavior is a pattern with Jclemens. To be clear, everyone makes mistakes. However, admins in particular need to be able to realize and admit when they've made a mistake, and they should be capable of apologizing and fixing their mistakes. Especially when 50 people tell them directly that they've made a mistake. The pattern that I'm referring to is that Jclemens appears to be unusually resistant to admitting that he has made a mistake. He generally responds with relentless arguments and wikilawyering. A review of some of the past ANI's involving him show a fairly clear pattern: . My feeling is that Jclemens has not yet learned from his mistake (and even still, at this time, has not yet admitted any wrongdoing with respect to this situation). This troubles me. Not because I need an admission of guilt or an apology from him for my ego or for my fragile emotions, but because I truly believe that this is behavior unbecoming of someone who is trusted with admin tools. Please let me know if you think this behavior warrants further discussion at RFC/U, or if starting such a discussion would be out of line or unnecessary in this case. Thanks. SnottyWong talk 18:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No point. It would be quite simple for an admin to say to jclemens that due to their misuse of rollback, they should not use that feature for the next x weeks/months. As I have said above, if they were not an admin, there would be no discussion, as rollback rights would have already been removed. Forcing people to jump through hoops like RFC/U over something like this simply shows that the admins commenting here are not interested in fairness. They should treat admins the same as those without the flashy bits, or not be an admin. Quantpole (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

However pure your intentions it doesnt seem unreasonable to have decided your delete voting spree along with the confrontational user box might have been disruptive or at least likely to cause a WP:Battle. Jclemens likes a peaceful accademic environment, including when that means going against the interests of the ARS. for example a few weeks back he deleted a thread on the ARS board advising that a squad member was in trouble on ANI. With hindsight, Jclemens seems to have been wrong to roll back your edits, but as you say everyone makes mistakes. As fellow volunteers it doesnt seem either best practice or collegial to insist on an apology unless we've been personally insulted. It especially doesnt seem helpfull to start time consuming proceedings against an admin who is clearly overall a massive net positive. Please take note of what Spartaz has to say, he isnt exactly known as an inclusionist. :-) FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't require an apology from Jclemens. However, I believe as an admin, he should be capable of admitting that he made a mistake, and fixing that mistake. As it stands, Jclemens continues to argue that he was right, in the face of all of the admins and users who have told him otherwise. Another admin had to revert his rollbacks, because he was unwilling to revert them himself. It is this reluctance to admit one's mistakes which troubles me, and if there is a clear pattern of this behavior, then should this person really continue to be an admin? That is the question I would like to get comment on in an RfC, but being unfamiliar with the process, I'm unsure if it would be appropriate. However, I'm leaning towards starting an RfC. SnottyWong talk 21:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If you believe it warrants an RfC, then I would say go ahead. That's what RfC is there for. Before you do, though, you should be aware that, aside from the time and attention involved, you'll also be inviting close scrutiny of your own edits. Sometimes these things boomerang. Best to know what you're getting into. Shimeru 21:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

@FeydHuxtable - A new hater This crossed the line. Talk about WP:Battle. The title of the section says it all. - Josette (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Barring some sort of intervention from ArbCom, an RfC/u is the next step here. Since there has been virtually no support for Jclemens actions (aside from FeydHuxtable, an extremely loyal ARS member) I don't think you have to worry about any boomerang effect here. AniMate 21:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't have a problem with that discussion. I thought it was kinda funny actually. SnottyWong talk 21:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Agreed...as did creating User:Milowent/userboxes/ARSRevolution in obvious direct response to the current MfD leaning towards keep, their own remarks in the AfD that apparently started this conflict between JC and Snotty, and leaving this note on the Snotty's talk page. That said, honestly, she is not the worse for promoting the Battle mentality of ARS...if any RfC is needed, it needs to be in dealing with ARS as a whole. The canvassing (both on and offsite), constant personal attacks, battle mentality, etc etc. Far too many are making such remarks as that, that people think it is "more fun" to delete articles than edit them, and other such crap. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Rollback has the potential to be abused in a content dispute. The ability can be granted or removed by any admin. Therefore, it is seen as an "easy-come, easy-go" tool, and there are explicit guidelines and limitations surrounding its use. In many ways, it is like Twinkle or other generally available tools - it doesn't give you the ability to do anything that any other ordinary editor cannot do; it just makes those actions more convenient. This is rollback, as it is seen by the majority of Wikipedians. For admins, things are different, because rollback is bundled with the real tools - the ones that do things that non-admins cannot do, such as block editors and delete articles. In this case, it's very unfortunate that Jclemens used rollback, because it has distracted discussion about what he did with considerations about how he did it. What is the difference between what would have happened if he had not used rollback, and where we are now? The edits were, after all, reverted by ordinary clicking on ordinary "undo" buttons. The difference is, of course, that people are calling for the other tools to be taken away. And of course if a non-admin had done this they would have lost the rollback bit. Any admin could have removed it, and a week later any other admin could have restored it in good faith. That isn't an option here, and we shouldn't be treating this situation as if it was. Two good solutions to this sort of situation - which is by no means unique to this admin - might be to unbundle rollback from the admin bit, such that it truly becomes an easy-come easy-go low-power tool that can be taken away from admins just like anyone else, or to recognise that the technical details are less important than community consensus, and impose a ban. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say rollback per se was the problem. I think the choice to revert (removing others' comments from an AfD) was the primary wrong. Use of "admin" tools to do so might've been an additional lapse in judgment, but this isn't a situation where using "undo" instead would've made things okay. Shimeru 01:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Unbundling rollback would be a good idea, but until then I don't see why you need community bans to limit the use of rollback by administrators. All that needs to happen is another admin says "Due to your misuse of the tool you are not allowed to use it for (however long)". That way admins are treated the same as ordinary users. No need for extensive discussions or anything. Quantpole (talk) 07:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Jclemens' Responses

In this section, I will post three different sections dealing with what I perceive to be the three outstanding questions:

1) Can administrators use rollback on non-vandalism edits?

2) Were Snottywong's actions disruptive?

3) Was I sufficiently impartial to be addressing the perceived disruption?

Comments are welcome, but I'm going to be responding in stages, and it may be some time between posts. Jclemens (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Administrator use of Rollback on non-vandalism edits

Here's what the current instructions are for the Administrator use of rollback.

• Misplaced Pages:New admin school/Rollback “Conventionally, administrative rollback is only used to revert simple vandalism or large amounts of mistaken edits (such as when a bot malfunctions). Using rollback to revert conventional good-faith edits is frowned upon because it leaves no useful message to the editor you are reverting and implies you thought their edit worth nothing more than the treatment of a vandal.”

“The "rollback" button also appears on the "Contributions" page associated with each editor. If you have examined a number of individual edits by an editor and determined that they all deserve(d) to be removed (for example, they all consisted of inserting the same WikiSpam), you may decide to roll back all recent edits by this editor. This can be done using the "rollback" buttons on the editor's contributions page.”

• Help:Reverting#Advanced_features “if you use the rollback feature other than for vandalism (for example, because undo is impractical due to the large page size), it is courteous to leave an explanation on the article's talk page or on the talk page of the user, whose edit(s) you have reverted.”

At the same time, it's clear this topic has been a point of discussion for the last several years. This smattering of past discussions seems vaguely representative, and it definitely shows that while “administrators must only use rollback on vandalism!” is one position, it is not universally held.

• Misplaced Pages:Admin_accountability_poll#The_rollback_button_should_only_be_used_in_cases_of_clear_vandalism.2C_or_reverting_oneself
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive15#Using_rollback
• Misplaced Pages:Non-administrator_rollback
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive173#Administrative_rollback
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive617#Rollback_misuse From a cojuple of weeks ago.

Thus, those who assert that administrators are held to the same standard of usage (vandalism only) as non-administrators clearly have some backing for that assertion. The instructions, as currently written, do not prohibit my actions.

At the same time, it is clear that those speaking up in this thread believe that the actions I've taken do not mesh with current expectation of administrator rollback use. I would encourage those who believe that current instructions to administrators on rollback use (the top two links, above) differ from expected norms to modify those pages, perhaps starting an RfC as appropriate. I, as any other administrator, am incapable of reading the community's mind, and encourage full and prompt updates to relevant pages when the community's mind has indeed changed. Jclemens (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't wish to wikilawyer; however, Misplaced Pages:Rollback feature does not discriminate between admins and rollbackers; the fact that the lead reads

The rollback feature is a very fast method of undoing blatantly unproductive edits, such as vandalism and nonsense. The name derives from the data management term rollback, meaning an operation that reverses the effect of changes made to a database.

Rollback is available automatically to all 1,727 Misplaced Pages administrators, and there are 3,489 accounts with the rollbacker permission. In total, 5,216 accounts have rollback rights.

leads me to understand that all users who can use the tool are expected to follow the relevant guideline, especially Misplaced Pages:Rollback feature#When to use rollback & Misplaced Pages:Rollback feature#When not to use rollback (in the latter, by the way, there's a reference to the fact that admins can't have it removed, short of being desysopped). I don't wish to appear naive, but, since admins are just editors who can use more tools than the average Wikipedian, I don't think that they can be expected to follow a different set of rules. Salvio ( ) 22:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree that the instructions to administrators on how and when Rollback can be used differ from those given to all users. While it's reasonable to infer that WP:ROLLBACK applies to administrators, there are plenty of other indications that it has not been universally so held, including the explicit directions on administrative use which allow far more leeway. Jclemens (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

In other words, the rules which everyone else has to abide by don't apply to admins. It's nice of you to say so so plainly. Quantpole (talk) 07:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Have they ever?  Giacomo  07:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Well no. But usually there is some sort of pretence that they're the same as the rest of us, just with a "mop and bucket". Quantpole (talk) 07:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I take no stance on the rightness or wrongness of Rollback rules being less restrictive in the admin use. It's there, and I didn't put it there. If you want to change those admin instructions to match the user instructions, that's your prerogative. Jclemens (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

So you are saying that you were using rollback in this instance in an 'adminny' way? But right at the top of this page you seem to be asking for input because you were involved with the user. Isn't there some rule about taking admin action against people you are involved with?

It seems that there is clear consensus that you did misuse rollback in this instance. Simple question - if another admin were to prohibit you from using rollback for a period of time would you comply with that? If not, why not? Quantpole (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

If you want to propose that as a solution, I will read with interest the community's consensus. The problem with that as a solution, though, is I've already said I wouldn't use rollback in the same circumstance again, so such a proposal would be inherently punitive, rather than preventative. The issue of involvement is a different sub-topic. Jclemens (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It is entirely the same as when an 'ordinary' rollbacker misuses the tool. It is taken away until they show that they are OK to use it. There is very rarely even any drama about it. Why should admins be treated any differently? In any case it is just a tool, and not being able to use it is hardly punishment, easy come, easy go and all that. Quantpole (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Jclemens, instead of wikilawyering, why not just actually read WP:ROLLBACK, which clearly states: "The rollback feature is a very fast method of undoing blatantly unproductive edits, such as vandalism and nonsense." as well as "Rollback should be used only for reverts that are self-explanatory – such as removing obvious vandalism; to revert content in your own user space; or to revert edits by banned users who are not allowed to edit." There is no ambiguity there. You can policy shop all you want, but it won't change the clear wording on WP:ROLLBACK. SnottyWong talk 16:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

To avoid this kind of mis-interpretation in future I have altered the Misplaced Pages:New_admin_school/Rollback so that it includes "Use of rollback by admins is subject to the rollback policy which among other things, explains when rollback can be used and when it cannot." The rollback policy makes no distinguishment between admins and users and there has been no consensus to change that in the past.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't it also mention that compliance with this is unenforceable and therefore voluntary?--Cube lurker (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No, WP:ROLLBACK is enforceable as it's what WP:ARBCOM is for and are more than willing to do.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Do they know this?--Cube lurker (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Not that I'm suggesting this is the case; however, it would also be possible for the community to impose a rollback ban on an admin, thereby restraining them from using the tool, if said admin made an habit of abusing it. Salvio ( ) 22:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Snottywong's AfD edits

At the time User:Snottywong first commented in the AfD, he made reference to the ARS. The article had been tagged for rescue by another editor and Snottywong's immediately prior edit was to the AfD of another page that had been tagged for rescue. As you might guess from the titles, 010 Editor was the first article on the list of articles flagged for rescue, 50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up the second.

At this point, it's reasonable to suspect that Snottywong, who has never been previously involved with the article, only participated to (as he would later admit) “ to counteract the implicit canvassing by the Article Rescue Squadron by regularly reviewing articles tagged for rescue, and voting to delete most of them.” No biggie—he's not being disruptive at that point.

Well, everything is proceeding along just fine. Snottywong engages in some typical AfD shenanigans, attempting to put words into other editor's mouths, denies the reliability and sufficiency of reliable sources, and whatnot. While annoying, it happens all the time, and sources tend to win out. At that point, Keep !votes clarly outnumbered deletes.

Later, I notice a new thread on my watchlist. This prompts me to investigate Snottywong's contribution history, where it is clear that he has systematically gone through and !voted delete on only articles tagged for rescue, with a single keep vote for a no-brainer keep (Upstate New York), and then proceeded to crow his derision in a userbox, which has since been modified after I nominated it for deletion.

Snottywong's spate of editing to AfD's constituted disruption, by his own admission. Cynics may well note that his only “crime” was admitting he intended to “counter-canvas” the ARS. His own userbox, since toned down somewhat, explicitly admitted bad faith by both accusing the ARS of canvassing and explicitly stating that his intent was to influence the deletion process by only commenting on {{rescue}}-tagged articles. Thus, no matter that his rationales were relatively reasonable, he fundamentally violated WP:HONESTY by giving presumably valid deletion rationales that had nothing to do with his actual motivation expressed in the userbox. That constitutes disruptive editing, in my interpretation and action. Jclemens (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Given that you'd seen that and drawn those conclusions, Jclemens, what would've been the most appropriate response?—S Marshall T/C 23:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Given the reaction of the community to what I did do, had I to do it over again, I would have simply removed the non-chronologically placed {{ARSnote}}s and manually marked his edits with an {{spa}}-like note in each affected documenting his pretextual voting. Jclemens (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, it sounds to me like Jclemens has learned from this, which means we're already in one of the top 1% of AN/I threads for achievement.—S Marshall T/C 00:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm not completely convinced. So would Jclemens be happy if all of the people that frequented ARS had their votes labelled with "an {{spa}}-like note" to indicate their pretextual voting. To be honest that would probably be fairer than what he's proposing, a fair number of their votes are along the lines of "This article is currently without reliable references, even though people have looked, but could be referenced some time before hell freezes over, maybe, so I'm voting KEEP!!!!!". The fact that they're a member of a group of (largely) inclusionists also needs to be considered perhaps? I mean if they're on the up-and-up and not effectively vote stuffing they wouldn't mind, right?- Wolfkeeper 03:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
        • Absolutely! If anyone uses a {{rescue}} as a flag to get votes without improvement, that's a misuse of the ARS. Now, the ARS are pretty much guaranteed to be inclusionists, so if one stops by, improves the article, and then MORE stop by and say "great job!" to the first guy and !vote keep... that's fair game. Article Rescue (whether or not done by ARS) is for taking worthwhile articles that don't initially meet standards, and doing the actual work of improving and sourcing the article such that by the end of the AfD discussion, the nominator's rationale no longer makes sense because the objections have been answered by improving the article. Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Sorry, but how is labelling a long time contributor a single purpose account a positive way to handle the original situation? Could you imagine the uproar if every ARS member was labelled {{spa}} at AfD? Quantpole (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
        • Well, we're going to achieve a small but genuine change in behaviour here, at least on Jclemens' part. That's progress in my book and it's more than I expect from the average AN/I thread. The ongoing !vote-stacking issues at AfD have been happening for many years, they aren't confined to the ARS, and they aren't Jclemens' fault. There should probably be a separate discussion about the problem of editors who only ever !vote one way and the potential use of spa-like tags on these editors, but I hardly think AN/I is the right venue. The immediate concern was to prevent unilateral mass rollback of AfD !votes and I think we can be certain Jclemens will not do that again.—S Marshall T/C 13:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
        • While you're probably correct, I can only speak for my own reaction: if an ARS member were to have a userbox that said "I go to rescue-tagged articles and make up a cool-sounding keep rationale on all of their AfDs" or the equivalent, I would expect any admin should be free to tag or remove those !votes, because they, like Snottywong, have admitted bad faith and gaming the system. Jclemens (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
          • Except pretty much no one here but you thinks there was bad faith or gaming of the system going on. Quantpole (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
            • I'm your pretty much no one.—S Marshall T/C 16:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
            • Quantpole: I couldn't agree more, but its clear Jclemens is unable to grasp the simple concept that he was out of line.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Jclemens, my userbox was one piece of evidence that arguably could have pointed towards bad faith edits. However, there were many other pieces of evidence that pointed towards good faith edits. WP:AGF would direct you to assume that the userbox was simply worded poorly, and perhaps start a discussion with me on my talk page before taking any action. It's clear that my AfD !votes were not disruptive, nor were they vandalism. I believe you actions can be characterized by WP:COWBOY, and were likely rooted in an emotional reaction you were having regarding the argument we were having on a previous AfD. Thus, you have violated WP:AGF, WP:INVOLVED, and WP:ROLLBACK. SnottyWong talk 16:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• User:Snottywong's history of offsite canvassing seems relevant to this matter. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Haha! Yes, that is truly damming! I encourage everyone to look (I assume CW was being sarcastic?) I see a neutrally worded post and then an apology when he is told it could be considered canvassing. Also, generally what happens off WP is irrelevant. Verbal chat 10:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• • • I see the ARS is finally getting off of their ARSes in an attempt to gang up on me and attack my credibility to save one of their own. Yes, Col. Warden, an isolated incident over 18 months ago (which has never been repeated since) is a great distraction from the serious discussions regarding an experienced admin who routinely violates WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. I'm sure that if the tables were turned and the admin in question was not a member/sympathizer of ARS, your comments would be quite different. In fact, I'm going to close the RFC/U right now in light of this new evidence which clearly invalidates my entire complaint. I appreciate the attempt to sling mud in defense of one of your inclusionist cohorts, CW, but I don't think this one is going to stick to the wall. Gimme a break... SnottyWong talk 14:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Involved, or not?

WP:INVOLVED is without a doubt the least clear of the guidelines at issue. Seriously—go read it now.

What are “cases in which they have been involved”? Does the fact that Snottywong and I disagreed in an AfD prohibit me from reverting his disruptive edits to entirely unrelated AfDs? Apparently, some Wikipedians think so, but the last time I reverted another admin's AfD closure on the basis that he had been INVOLVED with me in a prior dispute, I was chastised for invoking INVOLVED in that fashion. Really: every time I think I know what the limits of INVOLVED are, I'm told I'm wrong by someone. I would genuinely appreciate it if that section of the policy were discussed and clarified.

My fundamental reasoning was that Snottywong's participation in an AfD in which I was already a participant did not restrict my ability to correct his disruptive actions in other venues. The concept that an editor can start a dispute with an administrator as a way to prevent that administrator from taking corrective action is WP:BEANS material, but that appears to be what many editors are suggesting. The pretextual !votes in ongoing AfDs were clearly in a position to cause (admittedly minor and non-urgent) damage to the encyclopedia by contributing to presumably otherwise encyclopedic material being deleted, and called for a remedy.

I intentionally avoided the most straightforward immediate solution to Snottywong's disruption—blocking him—in part on the basis that that would affect his ability to participate in the AfD in which we'd been disputing notability. (The rest of the rationale, somewhat ironically, involved my lack of desire for drama that I anticipated might follow such a block, as well as the fact that he was not currently making disruptive edits. I intentionally chose rollback as a least invasive method to repair the disruption) Likewise, I considered and intentionally avoided remedies, such as the single-administrator-imposed topic ban, which have had poor community support in the past.

Overall, I think the suggestion that once an administrator is INVOLVED with an editor to the bare extent of disagreeing in an AfD, that administrator becomes forbidden to engage that editor in an unrelated corrective action is not supported by the current wording of WP:INVOLVED, which states in part “Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about communal norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'.”

Since INVOLVED is the most ephemeral of the policies, I accept the community's feedback that I should refrain from fixing such disruption myself in the future, with the caveat that the appropriate policy section really needs to be clarified to encompass current consensus. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This is disingenuous. While I strongly disagree with the notion of "involvement armour" used by disruptive editors to avoid sanction simply by getting into fights with as many people as possible so as to be able to shout "previous" whenever challenged on future behaviour, in this case you had an obvious recent dispute with the editor, were privy to the thread on ARS talk which noted the actions in question, and didn't behave in an uninvolved manner: rather, you reflexively "defended" the AfDs in question by rolling back (not striking) the comments in question regardless of the points raised without previously discussing it with him. The damage done by leaving said edits in question in place until your suggested course of action had been raised with genuinely uninvolved parties would have been minimal, which in itself obviates the need to have used rollback. On a further note, you must have known that as one of the few explicitly inclusionist admins regularly involved in AfD as a commenter (only DGG comes to mind as a comparable figure) this would bring a ton of scrutiny on you, which should have been an additional cause for pause. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I acted to defend the integrity of the AfD process by striking self-admitted bad-faith !votes, not to defend the ARS. Obviously, hindsight bears out your observations that my actions have been presumed to be bad faith. At no point in this discussion haveI seen Snottywong actually dispute my assertion that his !votes were in bad faith, or more relevantly, that at the time his userbox was created, a reasonable man would have concluded that they clearly appeared to be bad faith. Thanks for comparing me to DGG... although I think he's a far better contributor and admin than I. Jclemens (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I can see the words "...which proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that I have not been editing in bad faith" in the first paragraph of SnottyWong's ANI post. As for the rest of it, I think this rather firmly points out why the repeated suggestions back in the day that those opposed to ARS's actions start an "article deletion squadron" were laughed at: because the project's inclusionists would take such a thing as a license to assume bad faith of people. That's what you've done here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not an excuse for your actions ZacharyLassiter (talk) 09:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I don't make excuses. I explain what I was thinking at the time. Jclemens (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Jclemens, you were absolutely involved with me. Your comments on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up exhibit signs of anger and frustration, indicating you were getting emotional. It's not hard to jump to the conclusion that you were frstrated by our argument, and by reverting my !votes you had found a seemingly valid way to get retribution. However, using admin tools for retribution is a serious violation of the trust the community has in you to use those tools appropriately. SnottyWong talk 16:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Jclemens, "I acted to defend the integrity of the AfD process by striking self-admitted bad-faith !votes" Snottywong is a user, just like any other, he is entitled to his say. Now if he has a userbox saying he votes to delete most of the ARS articles, that is not an admission of bad faith. Rathor that is an admission that the user feels that its in the best interest of Misplaced Pages to delete most of those articles, however there are exceptions. You didn't defend the integrity of AfD, you blew it out of the water and abused your admin privleges in the process.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's been made clear that my interpretation was far from widely held. When someone takes an action based on their good-faith perception of a situation, which is not upheld by the community, that's generally considered a mistake, rather than abuse. Jclemens (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

And when that same person relentlessly argues that what they did was not wrong (despite dozens of independent comments to the contrary), that's generally considered denial, as in "Denial is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence." SnottyWong talk 20:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, how about you both step away from wikipedia space for awhile? Unomi (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

JClemens was involved not just due to a dispute with the editor, but because of his membership (though he refuses to add his name) and very active support of the ARS. He also says above "I intentionally chose rollback as a least invasive method to repair the disruption" What disruption? He still does not get that there was no disruption until he broke rollback rules and acted in an administrative capacity in a subject which he was involved. He also calls snottywangs !vote "pretextual" another clear failure of WP:AGF, especially now this has been shown clearly not to be the case. Or does JClemens have any evidence to back up his bad faith accusations? Verbal chat 16:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Overreacting is bad

SnottyWong overreacted to Jclemens actions. Then Jclemens overreacted to SnottyWong's actions. Now ANI is overreacting to joke section titles like "A new hater". This looks like Conflict escalation. How about dropping the sticks and walking away from the matter. If Snottywong makes clearly wrong AFD !votes then we can discuss this again. (Meanwhile, Snottywong has opened Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Jclemens, someone please make a statement saying that the dispute has been brought out of proportion, so I can endorse it.) --Enric Naval (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, overreacting is bad. But then so is stuffing an article with dubious references in the hopes that no one will check them, so that it will be kept at AFD, which it now appears that Jclemens was doing with article in question. Jclemens apparently overreacted when he was more or less found out by SnottyWong. And the majority of of the keep votes in the AFD are ARS members. None of this is filling me with warm fuzzies.- Wolfkeeper 05:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, no. Every reference is legit and I have accurately characterized each one in the article and discussion. Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Man, Wolfie, you're giving me a bad trip with all your negatively tinged comments about ARS. No matter, I'm off to vote keep on articles like Milowent's High School Lunch Schedule (2001), because its my impression that you think that's what editors who like to improve content do. I feel bad now that I ever noticed Snotty's dumb 'ol userbox and commented on it at ARS talk with the (intended to be humorous) "new hater" comment. Some people get more upset than I do about sentiments like Snotty's about being in favor of deleting all possibly marginal content. I take a more long term view, because from what i've seen, deleted verifiable content almost always returns to the project in some other article (or even in the same article recreated), so deletion is not very efficient at improving the project. We add 10x more articles per day to the project than we delete, so this is inevitable. JC was doing a good job with that article, regardless of whether the consensus ends up deleting it. There was no evil cabal to save an article about an admittedly vacuous 2005 TV special on former child stars. However, I have started an article on Gary Coleman's first feature film, User:Milowent/On the Right Track, which I could not believe was not already covered. It received widespread press coverage, including reviews from Gene Siskel and Janet Maslin. All are invited to participate and drop this drama. Its a funny movie. Gary Coleman stars as an orphan who lives in a locker in a train station. Who wouldn't love that?--Milowent (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that adding refs you don't seem to have read is a form of lying to the reader.- Wolfkeeper 06:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I read every single ref I added. Pretty sure I read every single one which was already there. I have Lexis-Nexis access, which means I can access content that Google cannot. On what basis would you presume that I'd added anything without reading it? Jclemens (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

If you did, how come it was deleted, and how come multiple people (other than SnottyWong) in the review indicated that the references you added were in many cases almost entirely nothing to do with the topic of the article? You're supposed to add references that unequivocally, self evidently support the material, but that doesn't seem to have happened, and when SnottyWong (quite rightly) pointed it out, you went through and removed large numbers of his edits at other AFDs.- Wolfkeeper 22:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

i'm glad JClemens admitted his fair share of blame... i agree that makes this AN/I less dramatic... people who make mistakes with no regrets need a warning to learn their lesson... but i think jclemens showed that he's learned that he can find a less dramatic way of handling this stuff.. i hope snottywong will consider scaling back the drama too. i'd hope he could try to generate more light than heat on issues that bother him like ARS... his userbox is creating a WP:BATTLEGROUND by borderline-attacking a specific group of editors... and it really would be better for wikipedia if everyone took a step back from the borderlines of incivil behavior... at least i hope he doesn't make a habit of borderlining and he's actually been civil and reasonable to me personally... as for ARS i think it might be fair to ask that someone who adds the rescue template should be obligated to add "this article has been tagged for rescue" to the deletion discussion itself just so it is easier to police for canvassing versus good faith improvement... again i think that's a fair improvement that would reduce drama.. Arskwad (talk) 07:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Arkswad and I think that, for the moment, the RFC is a little premature: Jclemens is discussing and seems to me open to input from uninvolved editors. I have, however, a simple (and blunt) question for him, hoping he will want to answer.

Are you still convinced that admins can follow a different set of rules when using rollback? This is a question about your future actions, I'm not trying to discuss your past ones. Salvio ( ) 11:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You tell me: read the top two links I posted in the rollback section above (assuming no one's changed them yet--I don't have time to check this morning), and let me know if they allow for or encourage administrators to use rollback in a non-vandalism context. Jclemens (talk) 14:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

They don't. If you think they do, then you're mistaken. How you ever thought that is beyond me. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Chris on this. WP:ROLLBACK applies both to admins and to rollbackers alike. In my opinion, if you were willing to acknowledge this for the future, this entire incident might be marked as resolved, since you acted in good faith. Salvio ( ) 14:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I cannot pretend that the current policies and guidelines say what they do not say, nor that they do not say what they in fact DO say:

• Conventionally, (a convention is not a rule, is it? It's a common practice) administrative rollback is only used to revert simple vandalism or large amounts of mistaken edits (such as when a bot malfunctions). Using rollback to revert conventional good-faith edits is frowned upon (frowned on is not prohibited, and there are plenty of non-good-faith edits that are not vandalism) because it leaves no useful message to the editor you are reverting and implies you thought their edit worth nothing more than the treatment of a vandal.
• if you use the rollback feature other than for vandalism (for example, because undo is impractical due to the large page size), it is courteous to leave an explanation on the article's talk page or on the talk page of the user, whose edit(s) you have reverted. (emphasis mine, and note that I did this in this case).

It's clear from the feedback here that consensus does not match these written directions on Rollback's use. Now that I am aware of the disconnect between what is written and what is expected, I will continue to abide by the community's expectations, but strongly encourage that all relevant pages be updated to be consistent and clear. Jclemens (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you normally do things that are expressly "frowned upon", just because they are not expressly prohibited? SnottyWong talk 18:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Not usually. Honestly, the primary reason I used rollback was because you'd done both the votes and the tagging with {{ARSnote}} in a number of the discussions. Had it just been the first or had things been always done in the same edit, I wouldn't've used rollback. Jclemens (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Having a look over this, Im somewhat annoyed by the stupidity of it all. Jclemens showed extremely poor judgement by rollbacking a user's votes on a deletion forum. Not only was this a blatant misuse of rollback, but he is has indicated that (in his view) the rollback policy doesnt apply to admins. I suggest Jclemens chooses his next words more wisely or this will no doubt go to Arbcom and they can deal with it.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Don Martin (public affairs)

This is a strange one. This AfD focuses on a land developer in Austin who also published a book of old postcards from the area. I question the notability of this individual, but the most aggregious aspect of the article is the other editors involved, all of whom seem to have some personal motivation to ensure the article only focuses on the positive aspects of the individual's life, while circumventing any attempt at adding data (verifiable) that would balance the article. I seem to be the only editor on this AfD who thinks the article should be deleted, except for the original nom, and the others are viciously adamant that it be kept, which smacks of WP:COI and WP:NPOV. I have had edits I've made to the article reverted when the edit was intended to make the article more concise and encyclopedic, while the edit reversions always favor showing only the positive aspects of this person. It is believed that some people close to the individual are actually editing the article while he himself has weighed in on the discussion page, which leads me to believe he might have been writing it himself at some point, possibly while signed in as someone else. Additionally, the name of the article is actually the name of his business, which seems a method of using Wiki for free advertising. Some outside help and opinions would be appreciated. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Investigating. ⇒SWATJester 05:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you on the AfD, but the consensus is overwhelmingly to keep. Part of the problem with this article is that the things that seem like a resume here are actually also sourced assertions of notability. That being said, it's difficult to identify which one of the users involved would be the COI users -- since the article looks fairly decent at the moment, I'd suggest that the additional eyeballs from the AfD ought to keep whitewashing out, and if there's further problems try the COI Noticeboard or other DR measures. But I'm not seeing any obvious admin action needed here. ⇒SWATJester 05:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment per the subject of the article requesting input of uninvolved editors I have made an RFC Talk:Don_Martin_(public_affairs)#Review_of_Nightmare.27s_Removals_of_Citations ZacharyLassiter (talk) 07:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - FYI, Nineteen Nightmares has repeated removed content, references, etc, ignoring the clear consensus of editors, has made baseless accusations which caused another admin to give him a warning on his conduct, has repeated dumped non-relevant material into the AfD discussion. GregJackP (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment FYI, GregJackP is a liar. I have done nothing but try to improve this article, while a handful of people obviously close to the subject continue to revert anything that does not amount to "puff" material to make this guy look like a Captain of Industry. I have made no accusations against anyone but did question why so many of the folks working on the article are oddly and vehemently protective of the article and/or any changes whatsoever. Everything seems to get reverted back to "look at all the great things he's done!" material, while anything that is not positive is quickly removed as "non-relevant" or any of a number of other bogus claims designed to distract the discussion from the purpose, which is to edit it to Misplaced Pages standards. The non relevant material referred to by GregJackP, by the way, was a transcript of the case against Martin and the company he represented. How is that non-relevant? None of these editors EVER answer these questions, instead reverting to attempts to get me banned for asking critical questions or trying to genuinely improve the article. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Ninteeen Nightmares

• That is a personal attack and a violation of WP:NPA. GregJackP (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Nineteen nightmares is (to say the least) wrong about the editors at Don Martin. There seems to be an active mix, with some who are editing with a conflict of interest in favour of the subject, one who says frequently that he is that subject, and some who apparently wish to highlight a particular lawsuit regarding a memo that the subject wrote. On balance, there is a healthy spread of opinion in the editors there. But I see that Nineteen Nightmares has recently been blocked for disruption. I guess the blocking admin didn't read User:Nineteen Nightmares. Or perhaps they did. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 15:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with that block, was page protection even considered as an option? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm a little concerned over the whole matter. In answer to Beeblebrox, I do not believe that page protection was requested, however Nineteen has been adequately warned on his talkpage, including by an admin (Sarah) who advised him that he would be blocked if he continued. He has been blocked in the past for similar problems, and continues to vandalize the article by removing references, changing sections, making personal attacks, etc. The content has been discussed at length, and it wasn't until an outside admin came in and made a suggestion that we came to a consensus on the lawsuit. It is not appropriate to completely disregard such consensus and arbitrarily change the article. At the least it should be discussed on the talkpage. In addition, his personal attacks are becoming tiresome, such as the one above and the one appealing his block. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  I just want to note for the sake of completeness of the ANI archive that my warning was a specific warning about Nineteen Nightmares being abrasive towards other editors and the article subject and moving messages about the article from his/her talk page to the AFD page. I have never warned him/her in regards to his/her edits of the article itself. I think s/he is genuinely concerned the article is being used as a promotional tool and is honestly trying to address that - whether s/he is going about that in the right was is another matter but I really don't see any deliberate maliciousness or intent to damage the article. A lot of the items on Nineteen Nightmares's list below look like worthwhile issues to review. Sarah 04:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - FYI, I reverted one edit of NineteenNightmares here: because he included an external link that was unsourced, inflammatory, had nothing to do with the article, appeared to be an attempt to smear the article subject or his company, and was not a "full transcript" of anything although that what he called it in the external link. I believe I gave him a mild warning about disruptive edits on his talk page. In response he came to my talk page and accused me of COI, sock puppetry, trying to own the article, preventing full information, and said that I was taking the article too personally. See here: and here . When I did not respond to his demands that I address his comment, he informed me that he had reported me to the admin notice board/incidents. I have not been on wiki in a couple of days for any length of time, so my comment may not be timely - if that is the case I apologize. I think Nightmares has now been blocked. I don't think the page needs protection, as it is only one editor who is apparently causing disruption and he has been blocked. Minor4th (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• That article is a fantastic piece of advertising copy. Guy (Help!) 15:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment It sure is. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

• Comment I've added six suggestions for the improvement of this article, much of which I began yesterday, and was banned for, ostensibly, vandalizing the page when in fact I was trying to make it better and bring it up to Wiki standards. Here they are:

(Copied from my Talk page)

• Change the name of the article from Don Martin (public affairs) to Donald G. Martin as listed next to his picture on the piece. This will quell any problems with disambiguation and actually list him by his name rather than his business name, in effect giving his company free advertising via Wiki.

• Reduce the opening paragraph to a concise single sentence. The opening paragraph reads now like a high school report, you know: "lay out everything you are going to say in the opening paragraph, cover it in the body of the assignment, repeat first paragraph for last but rewording it." In other words, the opening paragraph should be used to make a quick bio of the individual without listing everything in the article, i.e. redundancy. I tried to do this but my edits were reverted.

• Cut out the deadwood, grammar and punctuation mistakes and tighten up the article to read like a Misplaced Pages (encylopedic tone) article and not a PR or "vanity" piece, which in my opinion it is currently. I tried to do this as well, but these edits were reverted as well, including putting all the grammar mistakes back into the text.

• Review and retitle external links. The external links offered by this article are in effect the man's personal business website, his land development information website for a large area developed by him and others, and one on the postcard book, which incidentally I don't see as a problem. When I tried to make a more concise and specific name for the URLs such as "Don Martin Public Affairs official website" it was reverted back to simply "Don Martin Public Affairs." Likewise with the land development website that is listed, which is the advertising and sales website for the 300+ acre parcel he has developed. It was changed to "La Frontera development website" but was quickly reverted to "La Frontera" which is ambiguous at best.

• A user (Austin3301) with an admitted WP:COI has stated that the client lists have been removed. In fact, there are still two (yes, two) client lists on the article. One lists each large corporation and there are what looks to be a couple dozen roughly. It takes a paragraph just to list these companies and is really superfluous to the article. The article is about the man, NOT the business. There is also a URL link to his site with a redundant list of clients. It does not seem appropriate to list the clients. This is an encyclopedic effort, not an advertisement. Additionally, in the same paragraph, Austin3301 states "various boards and commissions were eliminated..." from the article. Also not the case as there is still a large section that is both messy and unnecessary.

• Clean up references. This is a pretty big one. I would say most of the references in the piece are not actually referencing Don Martin at all, but for example, there was a URL to a form ostensibly used by a company he sold, but no mention of him, his involvement, etc. To put this in perspective, it might say he was the president of the New York Times and then list a form for a classified ad for the newspaper to reference it. There is no way to verify what he is saying against the listed URLs and/or documents because he is not listed in any way, shape or form. Again, when these edits were made, they were reverted back to the original innappropriate content, including putting all the punctuation and grammar mistakes that I cleaned up back into the piece. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Speedy deletion improperly declined

Yesterday I nominated File:Richard goldstone inside un car.jpg for speedy deletion. This image is from a series by Ashraf Amra of Associated Press, taken on 3 June 2009. Another from the same series (taken a few seconds after this one) can be found online at http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2009/1104/p02s13-usfp.html . The uploader's assertion that "the source of the image is unknown, its copyright status is very hard to verify" is patently false. I was surprised to find that it's been declined; it's an unambiguous copyright infringement and it's very dangerous to rip off agency photographs with false assertions about copyright - especially as the owner of this image, the Associated Press, takes an aggressive line on copyright infringement. Could an admin with more clue about copyright please deal with this asap? -- ChrisO (talk) 09:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the declining admin was absolutely right. The image was tagged as non-free and had a fair use rationale. Therefore the "blatant copyvio" criterion does not apply. (Did you discuss this with the admin before bringing it here?) ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 09:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Fastily was, IMO, correct. You tagged the image as F9- and I quote, "Images (or other media files) that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case. A URL or other indication of where the image originated should be mentioned. This does not include images used under a claim of fair use," (emphasis mine). When you tagged it, the image did have a fair-use rationale, at the bottom, making F9 non-applicable. WP:FFD is the next step in this process, not AN/I. Courcelles (talk) 09:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, I'm afraid. Agency photos are specifically excluded from fair use on Misplaced Pages except in certain very limited circumstances: "Unacceptable use ... A photo from a press agency (e.g., AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article." WP:NFC#UUI This is not the case and as I've already stated the uploader's claim about the image's status being unknown is false. It was ripped off from a website which ripped it off from the AP. This is an open-and-shut case of unacceptable use that isn't covered by fair use. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

If you think that the image fails the non-free content criteria (which I assume you do, since that's what you linked to) then you could tag the image with {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} or nominate it for deletion at FfD. Speedying is not appropriate. Did you discuss this with the admin before bringing it here? ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 10:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"Doesn't stand a chance of being kept" is quite a bit different than being speedy deletable under F9. Courcelles (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter at all whether the claim is valid - that's for the deletion debate to decide. As long as the claim is present, it cannot be speedied under F9. This is similar in style to A7, where there merely needs to be an assertion of notability, even if that doesn't meet the notability guidelines. This was a fine response that you should have discussed with the admin in question before coming here, imo. Ale_Jrb 10:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Any admin with a decent knowledge of copyright should realise immediately that a ripped-off agency photograph, used without any valid claim of fair use and with a false claim of unknown status, is an unambiguous copyright infringement and thus covered by F9. But since there seems to be a refusal so far to acknowledge reality, fine - I'll notify AP and suggest that they send a takedown notice to the Wikimedia Foundation. Really, we need to raise our game here - this isn't good enough; this is copyright 101. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You want to be very careful imo. You've completely ignored WP:NPA by calling someone incompetent and are quite possibly walking the line on WP:NLT by suggesting corporations send legal notices to the WMF... I also suggest you read WP:CSD#F7 for future reference, which I think is the correct tag - invalid fair use claim - as you seem to be disputing the fair use rationale. Ale_Jrb 10:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

If admins, who are supposed to police copyright violations - I did that for six and a half years myself - can't recognise an obvious copyvio then there is a real problem. A kick up the collective backside would not go amiss, in my opinion. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—Chris, who opened the thread, did not notify Fastily (talk · contribs) about it, as is required. He did not politely enquire as to Fastily's reasoning, as is effectively required. He insulted Fastily by suggesting that they lacked "clue" without giving them a chance to defend themselves. That is extremely poor behaviour on his part and I think that he should apologise. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 10:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  I know perfectly well what Fastily's reasoning is, and it's wrong. If Fastily doesn't recognise an unambiguous copyright infringement when he sees one he shouldn't be doing speedy deletions. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  No, Fastily was absolutely right. You are wrong: and in so many ways. Please explain why you ignored the large notice at the top of ANI which clearly states, "You must notify any user that you discuss." ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 10:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  That was an oversight on my part - apologies. I see you've notified him though. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  Chris, the correct way to solve this procedurally is to tag it as {{Dfu}}, or even more safely, simply to list it at FFD. It will be gone in a week. You are of course correct about the essence of the image policy here, indeed it has no chance of being kept. Please just list it for deletion, and since the copyright status and lack of legitimate FU is so obvious, I'm going to keep it out of article space until it's gone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  I've tagged it under CSD F7 as suggested above by Ale jrb. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I actually think it could possibly be speedied immediately under F7, as a blatantly inappropriate claim of fair use, but I also think that calling an admin incompetent with no clue and threatening to invite a corporation to take legal action is not the best way it could have been handled... (And I still don't think you could delete it under F9.) Ale_Jrb 10:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  You should note that I refactored immediately . However, I still think this incident does indicate a worrying lack of awareness of the seriousness of the copyright issue. AP is the most aggressive news agency around when it comes to enforcing copyright. They're even suing Sheperd Fairey over his famous Obama poster, which is based on one of their images. Copyright is probably the greatest single liability we have. We simply can't afford to take a casual attitude to it, particularly when the infringed party is known for aggressive enforcement. - ChrisO (talk) 10:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Fastily applied policy correctly. Whether policy is correct or not is another matter. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  It looks like this could be solved with F12 - unacceptable fair use of agency photos. Mjroots (talk) 11:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  We don't actually have an F12 at the moment, as I'm sure you know, but I think it would be a good idea to have one addressing this issue. I've raised the question at Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Additional category F12: news agency photographs. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

A WP:TROUT to ChrisO for:

1. Not contacting the admin in question first in order to discuss
2. Not notifying the person being reported to ANI

Clearly, the CSD was declined as per policy, and his is now being dealt with using the correct policy - which could have easily been determined without WP:DRAMA. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• The CSD shouldn't have been declined; the rationale should just have been changed to F7. Just because the wrong tag has been applied isn't a reason not to delete something that clearly isn't going to be useable; let's not tie ourselves in red tape here. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• it's a good thing we've got those little niggling rules so that we can sidetrack issues if someone makes a tiny mistake rather than properly address them. I propose we add a new rule, users reporting issues to AN/I should only do so wearing blue pants and failure to upload a time stamped image of themselves sporting blue pants with the proper case sensitive file name will result in a total invalidation of anything they have to say.--Crossmr (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  Sorry, your sarcasm (while riotously entertaining...) makes it difficult for me to get your point. Are you saying that you think the requirement of notifying other editors that you have posted a threat complaining about, or badmouthing, them here is a bad idea? ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 12:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  Or are you trying to say that, by reminding ChrisO of the rule, TrerasuryTag was stifling discussion of the copyright issue? Becasue I really don't see that that's the case. 163.1.174.65 (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  TreasuryTag brought it up twice, and Bwilkins brought up as two different points. This is not the only time this kind of thing has been brought up in an AN/I discussion to try and characterize the person starting the thread and take some focus off the issue. So I'm going to propose a new rule: If someone forgets to notify someone about a thread, assume good faith (you know that thing we're supposed to do), notify the user yourself if you notice and leave a polite note on the thread starter's talk page and leave it off AN/I. Anything else is simply an assumption of bad faith and looks like an attempt to start other drama irrelevant to the topic at hand.--Crossmr (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• F7 doesn't immediately apply: it's not a "clearly invalid" use of fair use. It is tagged as disputed fair use and it is tagged as replaceable, and it will be deleted accordingly in a few days unless a defence of irreplaceability and fair use can be found. There's no need to rush things or get upset when admins apply the letter of the speedy deletion rules. Fences&Windows 15:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  The point is that we specifically state that fair-use never applies to agency photos, unless the article is about the photo - thus any claim is, obviously, clearly invalid. However, it isn't a wrong tagging, as suggested in the example, so for 'immediate' deletion under F7, I think you could read the criterion both ways. With that said, I considered deleting it under F7 from when I first mentioned it, and decided not to, so there we go. :) Ale_Jrb 16:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  I've decided I wasn't very clear just then. What I meant was, there isn't a defence - the image isn't allowed full stop, and it will be deleted, so I can understand where the 'we should just do it now' argument comes from. Ale_Jrb 16:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Late to my own party again!! :( @ChrisO - Chris, please bear in mind that a copyright violation does not exist until a user claims work that is not their own as their own. Just because a file is non-free/copyrighted does not mean that it should be deleted as a copyright violation. Frankly, the use of Associated press/Reuters/Getty Images photos is not prohibited, it is only strongly discouraged. From the relevant policy page (WP:NFC#UUI, point 6), it is implied we have used press photos as article subjects. Now if anything, the file we're discussing above fails NFCC criteria #1 and 2 and should be tagged as such. An immediate speedy deletion under F7 would only be applicable if the file bears an invalid fair use claim - (e.g. inappropriate license tag). Regards, FASTILY_sock 18:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Fastily, but I'm not entirely sure that I actually need you to explain F7 to me... F7 allows immediate deletion if the fair-use tag is clearly invalid. The fair use tag clearly is invalid, because we don't allow fair use tags on agency images. Thus, it could quite easily be read that F7 applies to this particular image. I'm aware that this is reading F7 in a slightly different way, but stating flat out that it an incorrect reading is, imo, not something you can just do. I'd also point out that while being prohibited by a guideline rather than a policy doesn't actually mean it's prohibited, it gets pretty darn close. Ale_Jrb 10:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Fences&Windows removal of the tag was also wholly inappropriate, especially as the matter was under discussion. Ale_Jrb 10:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I think this discussion is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the speedy deletion process. Per WP:CSD "Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion. Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." The key words here are "save time" and "most obvious." While I understand there are concerns about admin's wielding too much power, I think they should have the unquestioned, unchecked, absolute right to say a deletion's justification isn't completely obvious. There should never be an appeal here of an individual CSD decision. If a speedy deletion is made, the appeal is to deletion review; if declined to XfD. Period. Anything else is wasting the time the speedy process is supposed to save. I propose amending WP:CSD to make this clear.--agr (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  As I've indicated above and Newyorkbrad has commented below, this isn't just about "appealing a deletion" - there is a real problem with the way that we approach our copyright priorities. This is an issue that goes wider than an individual CSD decision. If some admins are unclear about NFCC, which is clearly the case, that need to be discussed at a high level and with maximum visibility - not just in an obscure corner of XfD or DR. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

With apologies to anyone I would be overruling, I am seriously considering deleting this image under the NFCC, with a dose of IAR thrown in for good measure if required. I find it highly unlikely that a valid fair-use claim could be made for any press agency photograph from last year, other than under extraordinary circumstances. And this particular image is an in-situ photograph of a living person of a type that is routinely found to be non-compliant and deleted, even under circumstances where the invalidity of any fair-use claim is far less obvious than it is here.

If this discussion is a typical one, I think we need to have a serious internal discussion about getting our copyright priorities in order. We spend a great deal of time applying nuances of our policies and guidelines to images, many of which are decades old, as to which any claim of copyright or copyright violation is purely theoretical. In some of these instances, there is no reason to believe that any living person or active entity holds or seeks to enforce rights to the material, and there is no significant chance that anyone will be or feel damaged by our reuse of it. On the other hand, the copyright holder here is a for-profit news service has a subsisting economic interest in this recent image and I am certain it would legitimately feel aggrieved by this use of it, in a context where our use could be considered competitive with the news service's own right to use such image.

The issue here is not whether one could attempt to cobble together some sort of fair-use argument for this file; I am sure that someone could do so, although quite clearly so far no one has, if one were committed to push the envelope of what is permissible under fair use, legally and policy-wise, to the furthest extent possible. But that is not the approach English Misplaced Pages has usually taken, and this would be quite a poor place to start. As I've said, I think we err often in deleting images based upon purely notional concerns concerning their copyright status, and I would not mind some loosening of some of our guidelines with respect to these. But here, I think it is sufficiently clear that this is not an acceptable fair-use claim that speedy deletion would be justified, even in the face of the prior decline. Comments welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I could think of several situations. For example, any photo taken in an area or of an individual that we could not realistically expect wikipedians to have access to to take photos. If there were some kind of major news even in North Korea for example and there were some photos released of it, it would be completely unreasonable to expect that anyone on wikipedia would have had access to that event. I believe we had a discussion in the past about a notorious drug lord and I believe his image remained because it was unreasonable to expect anyone to break into jail to take his photo.--Crossmr (talk) 00:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Scarcity creates demand which creates value. An image of something which is difficult to obtain - say the picture of your drug lord - is a valuable asset precisely because it's difficult to obtain. If, for instance, AP is the only agency to have a photo of your drug lord then that photo has real commercial value which the agency will not want to see diluted by other people copying it without permission. And of course, that increases the risk involved in pirating the photo. Let's not forget that Misplaced Pages's role is not to compete with news outlets. If Wikipedians can't take their own photographs of a thing, that doesn't mean that we have a justification to steal images from someone who's taken the time, expense and (in some cases) risk to do so. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You might want to give Fair Use a read. Using a difficult/impossible to obtain image in an education setting the value of an image has no bearing on whether or not we can make a fair use claim. What has a bearing on whether or not we can make a fair use claim is if its reasonable to believe that a free alternative might exist. Last I checked fair use wasn't stealing.--Crossmr (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• F9 should read "reasonable claim of fair use". This images needs deleted now, not some random time in the future. — Coren  02:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries about Fastily's take on how it was tagged, but I've deleted the image as a blatant copyvio with a fair use rationale which falls outside the bounds of policy. If an admin doesn't agree and wants to rs it on their own pending more discussion in a deletion thread (not here), that's up to them. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious and disruptive editing by Pedant17

Pedant17 (talk · contribs) has been engaging in disruptive editing for well over a year at a number of articles. Below is just one example of just how impossible it has been to deal with this behavior; the extra slow edit-warring and discussion are intriguing aspects in themselves.

• In June 09, Pedant made this edit with summary "update; restore per talk-page discussions" - this was reverted. In Sept 09, Pedant made this edit which was reverted. There was agreement on the talk page here that the edit was not constructive.
• In Oct 09, Pedant reverted to "restoring constructive edits pending explanations for their removal". This was reverted with the summary "edits violated WP:OR, see also talk page from prev". This was followed by this brief discussion; brief given that the discussion took place between Oct 2009 and Apr 2010. Here, Pedant threatens to revert again on the grounds that an absence of response equates to support of Pedant's actions. Pedant also starts making assertions about no "fact-based" consensus.
• In other words, all the traits we expect in disruptive problem editing (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT etc.)
• On 11 Jun 2010, again without consensus, Pedant reverted with summary "update; restore per talk-page discussions" to his version.

Other examples (demonstrates pattern of conduct; lack of receptiveness to feedback; and so on)

• See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive614#Pedant17_disruption.2C_after_two_RFCs.
• See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive577#Pattern_of_disruptive_editing_by_Pedant17
• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Pedant17 for similar issues that occurred between 2006 and 2008.

This behavior is unacceptable; it degrades the quality of articles and the editing environment - and burns out constructive contributors. Now...before we put our hands up in the air and run to ArbCom, this community needs to try to effectively deal with this type of problem. The most obvious solution is a ban proposal, but it seems giving a set of last-chance remedies may be more effective. Thoughts? Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Pedant17

I would like to thank User:Ncmvocalist for bringing this matter before this august body of Administrators. I trust that fair-minded evaluation of the facts and circumstances will allow us to continue to improve the article in question: List of groups referred to as cults or sects in government documents, which has remained basically moribund for too long while I have attempted to discuss and make improvements and expansions..

I agree that we appear to have a case here of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It concerns me that I have done too much listening and heard little but repetitious abuse. I have repeatedly appealed on Talk:List of groups referred to as cults or sects in government documents for my fellow-editors to provide some reason or justification for the disruptive wholesale reversions of my much-discussed proposals for improvement - hence my raising of the issue of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (2010-05-11) in the first place.

The talk-page Talk:List of groups referred to as cults or sects in government documents currently contains, I believe, adequate justification for my editing and for its patterns in this article. In particular it includes:

• Unrefuted discussion (dated 2010-01-29) of an alleged consensus against my edits - with an appeal for further discussion.

• A response (dated 2010-04-29) to generic charges of "disruption" by contrasting the process of improving and expanding and correcting articles - with an appeal (unanswered) for explanation.

• An appeal (dated 2009-12-09, and still awaiting a satisfactory response) for an explanation of alleged "non-constructive" edits.

Such discussion as has taken place may well appear "brief" in that it has taken place one-sidedly. I have consistently called for discussion of details and sought explanations and reasons for the reversions of my edits - only to receive general accusations of generic crimes, seldom exemplified and never proven in any follow-through.

The tendentious accusation that I have "threatened" to revert masks a clear statement of intent to revert - conditionally - in the absence of explanation and justification. (dated 2010-04-25).

The accusation that I have acted "on the grounds that an absence of response equates to support" amounts to an unjustified interpretation. I have never claimed "support", but simply bolstered my arguments with logic and reason with a view to defining and re-refining consensus.

I observe that the only specific charge of "disruptive editing" made against me in the opening of this ANI discussion relates to an alleged case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (as discussed above). The vague "all the traits we expect in disruptive problem editing" smears my behavior unjustifiably. If anyone has specific evidence to the contrary, lets hear it.

Note that the quoted examples of ANI discussions and requests for comment on my alleged behavior have not resulted in any penalty, adverse consensus, or indeed any outstanding case to answer.

I quite agree that we should regard behavior involving disruption and lack of consensus-building as unacceptable. However, an examination of Talk:List of groups referred to as cults or sects in government documents reveals me as the victim rather than the perpetrator of these crimes - my proposals repeatedly rejected, by attempts at discussion repeatedly ignored.

I can see the danger of degrading the quality of articles and burning out constructive contributors. Thus I regard it as all the more important to defend good and constructive editing such as I have attempted to carry out. I welcome reasoned and reasonable criticism of my edits, but have a limited tolerance of unreasoned stonewalling and refusal to build consensus by discussion of specifics.

Apart from any issues of behavior or procedure, lets look at the substance of the editing which other Wikipedians have labeled disruptive, quality-degrading and unacceptable original research. Take my latest offering in editing List of groups referred to as cults or sects in government documents:

• I attempted to bring a little more precision to the opening discussion on the use of pejorative terms, toning down the lack of NPOV and providing examples of non-English terminology (as used in the article body). In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?

• I inserted two "Request quotation" tags in an effort to get precise wording for citation. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?

• I inserted citations for further examples of government document listings, as already discussed in the article body. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?

• I inserted further cited examples of government document listings, as mentioned in an already-cited source. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?

• I inserted an extra (sourced) sentence in the section on Australia with a view to mentioning a classic and well-known 1965 case of a government document addressing a "cult" issue. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?

• I re-inserted a previously deleted reference (albeit tagged with "Failed verification") to match the orphaned heading relating to the Austrian government's 1996 document. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?

• I added a sourced reference to the Austrian government's 1999 document, which also serves as a verifiable reference to the existence of the previous (1996) document. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?

• I added a heading for the otherwise orphaned text relating to the International Religious Freedom Report 2006. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?

• I corrected a French spelling of Énergo-Chromo-Kinèse. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?

• I re-corrected the use of an imbalanced "{" to match a "]". In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?

• I reduced POV in the characterization of Raffarin's circulaire by closely paraphrasing from the already-cited original. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?

• I linked "Berlin" to Berlin. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?

• I provided an extra translation of a German-language title. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?

• I re-formatted the "References" section to one column with a view to making it more readable, better formatted, and sequentially scrollable. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?

In summary: show where I've gone wrong. If you can convince me - no problem. Otherwise, lets talk about the issues, based on the facts.

-- Pedant17 (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Specific sanction proposals

I propose that any or all of the following sanctions be enacted by the community on Pedant17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) due to the long term nature of disruption.

Pedant17 is subject to the following terms of probation:

1) Should Pedant17 make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator. The sanction will take effect once a notice has been posted on his talk page by the administrator and logged at User:Pedant17/Community_sanction. Sanctions are at the discretion of the administrator, and may include page bans, topic bans, blocks, or any other restriction.

2) Pedant17 is strictly required to discuss each change he wishes to make to an article on the page's talk page prior to making the edit (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations). This restriction may be enforced through blocks, and he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages, once a notice has been posted on his talk page by the administrator and logged at User:Pedant17/Community_sanction.

3) Pedant17 is limited to editing with a single account.

NOTE: Please indicate whether you support/oppose each sanction. Eg; "Support 2 and 3 only", "Oppose all", etc. The rationale for #3 is to explicitly prohibit evading these sanctions under other accounts - something that certain tendentious editors have somehow argued as being non-explicit in the past. Hopefully, that sort of gaming of the system will as a result, no longer be an issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support all 3 as proposer. As an uninvolved user who is deeply concerned by the implications of this tendentious conduct continuing, I cannot think of any other way to resolve this issue, short of escalating or an outright ban. I have also looked at his response and there is no sign of change. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • If you can prove "tendentious editing" (as opposed to principled contributing based on reasoned debate), then you might have a point. -- Pedant17 (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose All He was never blocked at all. I thought the proposal of a sanction was caused by getting in trouble into the same area of editing. Clearly, he was never blocked for any reason, as you can see in the block log, and I haven't seen any evidence of sockpuppetry either. Minimac (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • You thought incorrectly then; the community response to this problem has been inadequate. That the disruptive editing is occurring in multiple areas suggests that this is a chronic problem that cannot be prevented by a mere community topic ban or timed-block. If this route isn't going to achieve sufficient support, the alternative and more nuclear route will be used. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Indeed, no blocks have taken place. I agree that the community has responded inadequately to the problem of pseudo-consensus. But the way to resolve this lies not in suppressing further input, but in endorsing Misplaced Pages Policies such as "consensus can change". -- Pedant17 (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
• Question re: sanction 3. Has Pedant17 used alternative accounts, or is this merely anticipatory? TFOWR 12:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Anticipatory; in light of the amount of socking many admins seem to encounter after problem editing is restricted on the first account. But I don't mind if the third is left out. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks. No strong views about sanction 3, I just felt that if Pedant17 had used alt accounts it should be taken into account. TFOWR 13:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support 1,2 (no strong view on 3). This edit in October 2009 looks very similar to this edit in June 2010. The latter edit refers to a talk page discussion, which indicates several editors' concerns about Pedant17's WP:OR. In view of Pedant17's inability to take on board the concerns of other editors I regard sanctions as a desirable alternative to further escalation. TFOWR 13:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The edits will look similar because no meaningful opposition to them has emerged - merely obstructionism. -- I count a grand total of two (2) editors (rather than "several") who attempted to raise a claim of WP:OR against me. I disproved that claim in a subsequent post to the talk-page. 29 Jan Do we have an outstanding claim of WP:OR ? -- Pedant17 (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support 1, 2, 3. I agree with TFOWR, the behavior exhibited by Pedant17 (talk · contribs), especially the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issues, is disruptive and harmful to the project. This is a sensible and logical proposal by Ncmvocalist. -- Cirt (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Something of a turnaround from a colleague who once attempted to persuade me to edit more and discuss less... Please demonstrate sensible and logical objections to the edits in question at List of groups referred to as cults or sects in government documents, and we can discuss them. In the meantime we might suspect that the suppression of bold editing disrupts and harms the Misplaced Pages project. -- Pedant17 (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support all three. This has been going on for too long. SlimVirgin 15:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • How long is too long to wait for fellow-editors to justify their opinions? -- Pedant17 (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support 2, this editor shows a tendency not to listen to other Wikipedians; I think the most appropriate remedy is #2. Salvio ( ) 22:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Not listening to one's fellow-Wikipedians constitutes a grievous crime - one that we should condemn. I regret that an editor who has so promptly and thoroughly reverted my edits at List of groups referred to as cults or sects in government documents should have reached the point where I felt the need to bring the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavioral guideline to his attention. -- Pedant17 (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
• Question. On the face of it, would the proposed sanction 2 make it impossible for the sanctioned Wikipedian to add any new articles to Misplaced Pages - in the absence of a pre-existing talk-page for a non-existent article? -- Pedant17 (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • No, it is possible for you to create an article, provided the first edit or so is purely to satisfy minimum requirements (eg; notability). The key thing to remember is that if you seem to be toeing the line of your probation in the view of an admin, you will be sanctioned accordingly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
    • That interpretation ("first edit or so") would appear to conflict with the wording of "strictly required to discuss each change he wishes to make to an article on the page's talk page prior to making the edit (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations)." Do we have precedents for this sort of scenario?-- Pedant17 (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Need help with disruptive and antagonistic Wiki user (QueryOne)

User QueryOne‎ (talk · contribs) has, since March 2010, been acting and editing in a disruptive and uncooperative manner, which I believe to be at odds with Misplaced Pages's goals, the goals of his fellow editors, and the welfare of the larger Misplaced Pages community. This user has repeatedly gone on disruptive editing sprees, resulting in the following ...

• Deleting factually correct information that is supported by reliable inline citations—particularly musical genres in infoboxes (see "Eight Miles High", "Walk Away Renée" and The Left Banke).
• Falsely accusing other users of Vandalism on multiple occasions (see QueryOne‎'s talk page and various edit summaries).
• Refusing to seek consensus with other editors regarding controversial edits and thus, perpetuating edit wars (see the edit summary and talk page of "Eight Miles High").
• Persistent wikihounding of Freshacconci, in an attempt to keep reverting his edits (see J. G. Ballard and "Walk Away Renée").
• Generally failing to assume good faith and be civil to other users (see User Talk:QueryOne‎).

Furthermore, a cursory glance at QueryOne's contributions over the last few months shows that his edits are limited to a fairly small number of articles and this (perhaps unfairly) leads me to conclude that he enjoys repeatedly annoying and antagonizing certain editors, rather than getting on with the business of improving Misplaced Pages. QueryOne has been warned about his disruptive conduct numerous times in a overwhelmingly helpful and polite manner by a number of different editors, including myself, Freshacconci, Collectonian (now known as AnmaFinotera), and Wwwhatsup. These warnings have been ignored and, in Freshacconci's case, have been met with vague hostility.

I propose that this has gone far enough and that the Wikipedians involved have done all that they can to resolve these problems themselves. I would therefore like to ask an administrator or administrators to step in and resolve this ongoing and intolerable situation. I hesitate to call for QueryOne to be blocked from editing, but I'm afraid to say that I believe that this may be the only option. I eagerly await your comments. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I don't feel I can really add anything to what Kohoutek1138 has clearly put forward. What started as a dispute over genres of music has escalated into what appears to be disruptive edits for their own sake, including continuously calling editors vandals for edits that are clearly not vandalism and making incorrect edit summaries in a disruptive manner. freshacconci talktalk 16:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Also agree with Kohoutek1138's summary. User:QueryOne first appeared removing a statement from the lead of Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins, calling the view unnotable.. When he was reverted, he redid the edit, calling it vandalism and clearly copy/pasting my own edit summary and replacing the names, as it is a Twinkle summary rather than the norm. We had some back and forth on his talk page, and some of his statements made me suspect that he is not the new editor his account purports. As I wasn't sure who he might actually be, I just left it and figured it was done. He returned March 24th when he followed my contribs to Promised Land (TV series) where he corrected a typo in the article but used an edit summary of "reverted possible vandalism by Collectonian" and Touched by an Angel where he removed a valid and properly sourced statement. I left him a warning for the false statement and removing sourced content, which resulted in more back and forth where I repeatedly pointed out the statement was sourced and he clearly didn't care. His responses are consistently hostile and antagonistic. He left again and returned April 3, where he apparently decided to move on and soon noticed that he was doing the same wikihounding of Freshacconci, only being more unrelenting. I debated posting about it at the time, but honestly I just didn't want to have him bugging me again cause I had enough to deal with. I honestly think a check user should be done to see who this guy really is, I cause I doubt he really is a "new" editor, and even if a CU can't be done, administrative attention to his actions is appropriate. Thus far, I haven't seen him make a single useful contribution, and he seems to be randomly changing articles just to change them. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Unarchived as no response nor resolution occurred. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked the contributor for 24 hours for disruptive editing, as s/he seems to exhibit a long term overall pattern of disruption, a refusal to engage in consensus building and battleground behavior. I hope that this will give him (or her) an opportunity to reflect and that when the user returns s/he will work constructively with other editors. If not, additional sanctions may be necessary. I am particularly concerned by the wikihounding. --Moonriddengirl 14:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully that will get his attention and get him to realize he's acting inappropriately.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Ellieradford

This new user has only made three edits, though this one concerns me . I think this is a probable attack account problem. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Admin has deleted revision. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 09:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Yoshinori Watanabe

This article is just about the most clear-cut WP:BLP violation that you could get, but an administrator, yes an administrator, has seen fit to restore unsourced content saying that article subject was the leader of Japan's largest organized crime gang. I'm not an expert on Misplaced Pages drama, so I may not be posting in the right place, but could someone please explain to Mr Bradbury that to restore such material is the precise opposite of what any editor, let alone an administrator, should be doing? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

There are no sources for any of these accusations. An attempt to delete the article as an attack was reverted by Anthony.bradbury (talk · contribs), who claims that BLP only applies to articles created recently. This article should be deleted immediately, or reliable sources provided; I am appalled that an admin doesn't understand BLP policy. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Anthony.bradbury#Yoshinori Watanabe and User talk:Phil Bridger#Yoshinori Watanabe. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I was about to add two reliable sources ("The Quake That Hurt Kobe Helps Its Criminals". New York Times. June 6, 1995.; "Godfather of Japanese underworld steps aside". The Guardian. 30 July 2005.) to this article but it was deleted. Aiken ♫ 22:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2I deleted it. It was, without doubt, "biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced". Regardless of whether or not it's true, without extremely strong sources, that has no place on WP. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

As the article has gone my comments are to some extent redundant. I was trying to say, over an edit conflict, that I agreed that the article should be deleted but that I believed that attack-speedy was not appropriate. Also the WP:BLP policy relating to references only applied to articles created after March of this year, while this one was here five years. But I am perfectly happy to see it gone. --Anthony.bradbury 23:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You are misreading BLP policy. The section you are referring to is policy involving all BLP articles that are unsourced. Every article, or section of article, that violates Misplaced Pages's BLP policy must be immediately removed without discussion. Period.

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.. May 19, 2006 . .

The portion you are referring to is just a general rule about BLP articles that crop up without references. Dave Dial (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, what about the sources Aiken found? They look quite solid to me. Tim Song (talk) 03:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I've userfied it for Aiken drum to work on using those references: User:Aiken drum/Yoshinori Watanabe. Fences&Windows 18:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with a reliably sourced article existing, but given the nature of the claims about the subject it has to be very reliably sourced. My problem was with an editor restoring unsourced, very serious, negative content about a living person, and my shock that a trusted administrator would do so. This is nothing to do with the recently introduced WP:BLPPROD procedure, with which the admin in question seems to be confusing this, but with the long-standing WP:BLP and WP:CSD#G10 policies. The unintended consequence of the dispruption that we have seen this year from several admins and at least one steward has led to the situation where we are just as worried about harmless unsourced articles that say "Joe Bloggs plays football for Anytown United" as we are about articles, such as this one, that had obvious potential to cause harm. I would add that I have seen many articles written in breathless, sub-Raymond Chandler, style about claimed gangsters that have very weak sourcing, but don't have the time to deal with all of them. I think that this is an area that we need to address. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The article has two perfectly adequate sources as external links that verify his position as a Yakuza boss. WP:BLP does not exist to protect retired criminals from us writing about them. If you want, I can provide 50 more sources. Fences&Windows 22:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

To further comment on this, I agree that negative unsourced articles about living people should be quickly deleted - but searching for sources about this man is easy, even if he does have the same name as a musicologistlinguist and a biologist. Simply speedily deleting articles without stopping to consider if the article can be quickly and simply verified is not a great approach, even if it accord to the letter of WP:BLP. I added the sources that verify the userfied article six minutes after userfying it, which I do not think is the greatest breach of policy ever, and surely nothing to be shocked about. Fences&Windows 22:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. My problem is not with your userfication, but with User:Anthony.bradbury's restoration of the article in its unsourced state after I blanked it with an explanation that WP:BLP does not apply to old articles, which is completely, egregiously, wrong. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's fun arguing about our rules, but I've sourced his bio and it's back in mainspace. I often find that this arguing over deletion vs inclusion is solved by just rolling your sleeves up and finding sources. Deleting the article would have been throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but restoring it without a single source was wholly negligent - so Phil Bridger is right to criticise this. It was basically all verifiable, but that ain't good enough for a somewhat controversial BLP. Fences&Windows 00:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Dignity

The article Dignity - quite some time ago - went through a deletion process where the result was rewrite it and merge it with Human Dignity, which I took care of. Originally the article was a personal essay by Pyrrhon8 on the uselessness of Dignity as a concept in international politics, based on the writings of some minor academic named Aldegrove (Pyrrhon had originally started the article because he had been rebuff from making the same essay on the Human Dignity article, which was merged with Dignity as part of the deletion process). It was badly written original research, hence the AfD. Pyrrhon8 comes back periodically to reimpose parts of his old essay, and the result is always the same - I revert to the version that came out of the AfD process, and then the page devolves into a revert war where he either won't discuss anything with me at all or starts insulting the crap out of me in talk (look at the talk page and archives if you want some idea of what's happened in the past).

I've way too many experiences lately with mindlessly tendentious, insulting editors, and I no longer give a fuck. If you guys want to allow him to reassert his idiotic personal essay, then fine, he can do that. I wash my hands of the page, because it's an utterly thankless task trying to keep it even marginally encyclopedic. I'm just posting this before I unwatch it in case anyone else actually cares. --Ludwigs2 23:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I care - but I may be a little busy in the coming weeks so I would like to suggest a course of action that might resolve this matter quickly. Has there been a RfC or other process regarding Pyrrhon8 (talk · contribs) and their editing? Has there been any admin intervention regarding their edits to the article previously? Notwithstanding the answer to the above, it is fairly obvious that - in this matter - Pyrrhon8 is a SPA who persistently reverts to their preferred version of the article, which details the philosophy of an academic who is not linked (not saying that a WP article is an indication of worth, but...) and might be served with a topic ban. I would invite other comments, and I would also like to thank Ludwigs2 for their previous efforts in this matter. I would note that I have not reviewed P8's edits to other articles. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just notified the editor of this thread. I'd support a topic ban, however, if it came to that: it's the only way, short of a block, we can ensure he no longer restores his version... Salvio ( ) 00:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Only as a start, I've left a warning about edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems there's enough fault to go around, but judging by the talk page, Ludwigs2 is making a good attempt to discuss the article, while Pyrrhon8 doesn't seem to have discussed anything on the talk page in about 6 months. There's also previous discussion from this noticeboard about the same subject.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 02:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries about me - as I said, I am no longer interested in working on that page, at least while this situation pertains. Pyrrhon already left me this message; an unfortunate omen of things to come. I am not in the mood to go through the escalation of hostility that will most assuredly result from any action I make on the page, no matter how civil and reasonable I might be (and I do recognize that I am not very inclined to be civil or reasonable with him at the moment, which is another good reason to walk away from the page). The only action I might consider taking there myself would be to put it up for deletion again, as an intractable mess - I'll check back i in a few weeks, and if it's back to the sorry state it was in before the last AfD I'll nominate it again and see what happens. otherwise, sorry... I just don't have the stomach for it. --Ludwigs2 05:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems that there will be some fresh eyes on the matter, so you can step away from it now if that is what you wish. If there is any follow up issues relating to the editor and you outside of the Dignity article then you could note it here, or at my talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've interacted with the article now as an editor because I felt this version was an issue under WP:UNDUE. I've explained why at the talk page and proposed a compromise: an article for Aldergrove wherein his own views would understandably deserve prominence (presuming, of course, he meets notability; I saw about 100 hits at google scholar but only scanned them; he may). Leaving aside conduct issues for others to deal with, I'll list the article at WP:CN or WP:NPOVN if there is disagreement with my reasoning. Sometimes wider input can help more clearly define consensus. --Moonriddengirl 11:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for that. Hopefully this further input will lead to a resolution. I shall watchlist the article, but I am confident that any concerns regarding P8's editing stance will be returned here should other venues not address the issues. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• I join you in your hopes. :) The content question is now raised at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Dignity. --Moonriddengirl 12:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I do think Moonriddengirl's take, that the root editorial worry is WP:UNDUE, is spot on. P8 is moreover both edit warring over this, mistakenly trying to call GF edits vandalism as a means to claim it's not edit warring. P8's PoV seems verifiable and hence can be cited, but not by skiving out other other sources and PoVs, much less without consensus and edit warring over it. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Anat Kamm#Requested move

The Requested Move was relisted by User:PhantomSteve. But the admins evaluation did not mention nor valuate at all the claim (in the statements/!votes, my me): "This is a WP:PARENT posting". I would prefer to have another admin to take a look & decision on this. Any discussion is at the talk-page. Notification will be made there (shortly). -DePiep (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I have commented there, as an uninvolved admin, that I do not think PARENT applies and that I endorse PhantomSteve's decision to relist. JohnCD (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

User:66.60.156.2

Say, would someone with Twinkle or other mass rollback tool take a look at this school IP's contribs and roll them back at once? The IP was reported for vandalism and it's easy to see why. Thanks. PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you can be more specific, it seems the IP was mainly changing categories to more specific ones, which is constructive, not vandalism. I'm unsure of why they were blocked - when the block occured, there had been no edits for an hour, and the last several were all constructive.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 00:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering too. Did you accidentally block the wrong IP? Or is this some long-term sock issue? Kindzmarauli (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It was on the AIV page as an abusive sock and I went ahead and blocked it per the request. If the edits were constructive, then plase feel free to revert my edits and unblock the IP. My bad if that's the case. PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, but the request was, and I quote, "I'm not sure if his current rash of edits are vandalism, but given the IPs history, and his changing of roughly 200 links in the past 2 days, it seems to at least deserve a look.". I admit I did not take a very close look at his edits, but I don't think they were vandalism; at least, before blocking, I would have approached the editor and sought a clarification on their talk page... Salvio ( ) 01:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Could we get this IP unblocked? It is a public shared IP, so per WP:BLOCK#Duration of blocks probably best to unblock or at least reduce to 24 hours until there is real vandalism occuring.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 03:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

All reverted. -FASTILY 04:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Why, exactly? --auburnpilot talk 05:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

With a little help I've rolled back all Fastily's reverts. -- zzuuzz 13:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm entirely confused by this situation. Why has an IP been blocked for three months for vandalism, and all of its edits reverted, based on edits like these? Where is the vandalism, disruption, or otherwise unhelpful contribution that resulted in a block? Why were these edits reverted? --auburnpilot talk 06:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

  I'm equally as confused as AuburnPilot. From the looks of it, the IP edits were nothing but constructive. I work extensively with categories, and I have to say those edits were right on point. I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to have reported IP in the first place, let alone block it and get all their edits reverted. Certainly, if it were block evasion, it would be a whole other story, but I see no evidence suggesting this. — ξ 06:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I am very confused now. Were the edits vandalism or not? -FASTILY_sock 16:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock. The more I look at this editor's edit history, the more I think it was all a misunderstanding... Salvio ( ) 07:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've unblocked. PMDrive1061 indicated this was no problem for him. I left a note beneath the block notice indicating that there seems to have been a misunderstanding. --Moonriddengirl 12:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, MRG. It was a mistake on my part. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

124.197.14.239

124.197.14.239 (talk · contribs) is engaged in active edit-wars at the articles Predator (film), Brüno, The Station Agent, and V for Vendetta (film). User waged an identical edit-war several days ago using the IP 203.100.212.94 (talk · contribs). The user insists that all instances of "$" must be changed to "$US", as there are countries beside the U.S. that use the dollar as their unit of currency. While it is true that the dollar is a unit used in numerous countries, I have explained to the editor a number of times in edit summaries and at the talk pages of both IPs that WP:$, which is part of our Manual of Style, states that in cases where the subject of the article is American (all of these are American films produced and distributed by American companies) we may simply use "$", especially if no other countries' currencies are referred to in the article (none are). Even if there were potential confusion, WP:$ instructs us to use "United States dollar" on the first instance and simply "$" on all subsequent usages, or "US$" if multiple nations' dollars are being referred to (which is not the case in any of these articles). Nevertheless the user continues to edit-war, accusing me of nationalism, telling me to "back off", and accusing me of being rude and of making threats (I have done neither). The user has broken on all 4 articles as of this writing. Suggest either protecting the 4 affected articles or blocking the IP 124.197.14.239. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

User talk:IllaZilla has started an edit war, and then accused others. This user has reverted helpful edits despite (i) the reason for the original edits being explained politely, (ii) not giving reasons for the reverts in the edit summary, and (iii) not giving appropriate reasons on talk pages.

The very, very small edits to which User talk:IllaZilla objects are to clarify to all Wikipedias reader whta currency is being quoted. It is confusing to use just '$' as over 30 countries use this as a currency. It is not correct to claim the articles are specific to any one country when the articles refer to films released worlwide, have earned money worldwide (inc. different $ currencies inc. from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore & The United States), and in some cases were written by & featured UK persons. Simply adding the prefix 'US' to $ is correct, and clarifies for all readers. Removing the prefix US does not help the articles, and actually damages them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.14.239 (talk) 06:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

IllaZilla is quite correct, these are American films, and the US is completely unnecessary, and only confusing to you. Long standing consensus on American films is NOT to use the US as a prefix on $. Your edits are unnecessary. Further, your edit warring, inappropriate warning and claim that he's being nationalistic (incorrect), demand that he "back off", use of multiple IPs to edit war, and your edit summaries of "reverting unhelpful edit by same contributor" and many others I'm seeing in your history are inappropriate and frequently uncivil. The possible deliberate use multiple IPs is against ] and strikes me as vaguely familiar. Nor are your edits "helpful" in this regard. I'm also curious as to your seeming tagging of three editors' talk pages with claims they are sock puppets-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Your reasoning is wholly flawed. The articles are not specific to any one country, and so which $ needs to be clarified. The article also reference earnings in a number of countries where $ are used, and so again which the $ needs to be clarified.

"The possible deliberate use multiple IPs is against ]" No, only if there is an attempt to hide identity which I have not done.

"I'm also curious as to your seeming tagging .." Why? These were appear to be attempts to hide identity.

My statement in edit an edit summary of "reverting unhelpful edit by same contributor" is valid. As this contributor was being unhelpful.

"demand that he back off" That was a heading to a section, and there is no evidence, as it was not made, of an order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.14.239 (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, 124.197.14.239 began the edit war, as is clearly evident from the article history: He made an edit, I reverted it, and instead of taking it to the talk page, he simply restored his preferred version. That is the definition of edit warring. I have also given ample reasons and explanations for my reverts in both my edit summaries and on talk pages: see , , , , . The claim by 124.197.14.239 that I have not given any reason for my reverts is blatantly spurious. 124.197.14.239, on the other hand, has failed to address in any way how the instructions of WP:$ are inadequate to cover the situations in these articles. All of these films were made and distributed by American film companies, so all of their budgets and gross revenues are counted in US dollars. There is no need to differentiate this from any other dollar of any other country, as no other countries' currencies are referred to anywhere in any of these articles. There is certainly no reason that "$US" needs to be specified every time the symbol $ appears; once would do, if at all. Also this is the incorrect abbreviation, as it reads as "dollar United States". The correct abbreviation, per WP:$, would be "US$", which correctly reads as "United States dollar". By the way, whether the films "were written by & featured UK persons" has absolutely no bearing on this issue, as the United Kingdom uses the Pound sterling, not the dollar, which has a completely different symbol (₤). Unless 124.197.14.239 is suggesting that our readers are unable to differentiate the symbol $ from ₤. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I've left them a message explaining what they're doing wrong and am happy to block if they continue. --John (talk) 07:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

User talk:IllaZilla please don't make further unfounded allegations. It was you who started and continued an ediit war: both on articles regarding '$' and on a talk page where you inappropriately made accustaions of vandalism.

And please do not try to distort the discussion by creating a false argument: up until your last meassge there has been no mention of ₤. The entire issue regards the many countries that use $ and the confusion that arises when this symbol alone is used in non-country specific articles. Suggesting such as "our readers are unable to differentiate the symbol $ from ₤" is a groundless invention that can only indicate weak reasoning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.14.239 (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Please stop making baseless accusations. You started the edit war, as clearly evidenced above. Let me be very clear: when you make an edit, and someone reverts it, and you respond by making the same edit again without attempting to discuss the issue, you are initiating an edit war. I certainly did not make any inappropriate accusations of vandalism. I politely informed you what was wrong with your edits and your editing behavior. I also correctly warned you about the 3 revert rule and gave you a courtesy notice about this thread (which is required, by the way, whenever someone initiates an ANI discussion about you). I'm confident that no one here besides yourself would interpret these notices as "inappropriate". You are also lying when you say that "up until your lessage meassge there has been no mention of ₤". I have in fact specifically mentioned it to you twice before: Here on June 7, and here not 2 hours ago. Since you replied to both comments, there can be no arguing that you were not aware of them. It is hardly a "groundless invention" on my part to bring up the topic, as you yourself have twice justified your reverts by the involvement of "UK persons" with the films: and . I am pointing out that this is a moot point, as the US and UK use entirely different currencies which cannot be confused. That being the case, why do you feel, as you have twice stated, that the involvement of "UK persons" is a reason to require "US" before all of the dollar signs? --IllaZilla (talk) 08:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Support a block of the involved IPs, the MoS recommendations above are quite clear and quite right. Despite ample notice, continuing disruption. Shadowjams (talk) 08:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

And now 124.197.14.239 accuses me of having an "insidious agenda" ...indeed, the insidious agenda of enforcing our Manual of Style. Keeping Misplaced Pages articles consistent with Misplaced Pages's own style guidelines is hardly an act of nationalism. Yeesh. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

No baseless accusations from me ... I've been entirely consistent throughout: many countries use $ and in non-country specific articles should $ be mentioned then the type needs to be clarified.

You made an inappropriate warning about vandalism simply because you disagreed with a (helpful) edit.

You reverted helpful edits without stating in the edit summary any reason (warranted or not).

You have recently created an argument that I was interested in ₤. Again, my reason for adding US infront of $ is to clarify which of the many $ currencies was beign quoted. I did mention the subjects were British, but this was to highlight one reason (and there are others) why the articles are not US specific.

More distortion. There was no accusation of an "insidious agenda" .. which is obvious because of the use of the word not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.14.239 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Another set of false claims. Here is the evidence:

• No baseless accusations from me

You baselessly accused me of starting an edit war. As I've plainly pointed out, you began the edit war when you restored your preferred revisions after being reverted the first time, and without discussing your edits on the articles' talk pages. We have a Bold-revert-discuss cycle that is used to establish consensus. When you unilaterally restore your preferred revisions every time another editor reverts your edits, you are edit-warring. In this situation you initiated the cycle of edit-warring by not taking the topic to the talk page after I had reverted your initial edit.

• You made an inappropriate warning about vandalism simply because you disagreed with a (helpful) edit.

My warning was totally appropriate. Your repeated edits were unhelpful. As you can see from this thread, I am not the only editor who thinks so. That fact that you think they are helpful does not make it so.

• You reverted helpful edits without stating in the edit summary any reason (warranted or not).

I gave ample reasons for my reverts repeatedly over 6 edit summaries: . After stating the same thing a half-dozen times, it became obvious that you did not care what my reasons were, so I did not see any point in continuing to state them.

• You have recently created an argument that I was interested in ₤.

No, you created this argument by twice attempting to justify your reverts to Brüno by stating that "a British comedian in a film that had a worldwide release is not an entirely US article" and that "the articles refer to films ... in some cases were written by & featured UK persons". Is is not appropriate for me to respond to these rationales you are giving? Especially since it relates directly to my points that the articles are about American films and that none of the articles contain any references to any currencies other than the US dollar?

• There was no accusation of an "insidious agenda"

Hmm, let's check again: "It is possible that you may have another agenda" (other than writing articles) "if there is not something more malign and insidious" (than writing articles)...how did you expect these comments to be interpreted? Please focus on content rather than making accusations towards contributors.

--IllaZilla (talk) 09:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• There was No baseless accusations from me. This is a valid statement as I made helpful edits which you reverted without noting the reason in the edit summary. When the helpful edits were restored you repeatidly reverted them .. and can be clearly seen you started an edit war.
• With no vandalism occuring it was inappropriate to post a warning.
• SOME of you summary-less edits include: ,,,,
• It was you who created an argument by referencing ₤. I never did, and why would I when it was irrelevant to the reasosn why $ alone is inappropriate and confusing. The mention of a British comedian is relevant to highlight why the article is not US specific, but this is just ONE reason. Other reasons include the fils were released in many countries that us $, and so earned money in these currencies. This is why the quoted $ needs to be clarified.
• Quote: 'accuses me of having an 'insidious agenda'. I did not and hence why I refuted thus false claim. If you do (let's) check again you will see that was no accustaion .. all accusations have been by yourself including those (falsely) of vandalism, and of making 'accusations'.
• 'Please focus on content rather than making accusations towards contributors.' It is ironic you should quote this as it as it is you who would do well to take heed civility and treating others with respect and politely.
• If you are unable to make logical and rational contribution to a discussion please do not create arguments (such as introducing irrelevant subjects as yiu did with ₤) or misquote (such as you did with the claim I accused you of having an 'insidious agenda'. To do such can be interpretted as evidence either of the paucity of you claim or a weakness in your reasoning.
• And having just noticed a recent edit summary includes '.. lying liars ..' it would appear that whilst you are happy to preach focus on content rather than making accusations towards contributors you are not prepared to follow this guideline. AND I have not lied, it is just another example of your distortions although in this case 'invention' is more accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.14.239 (talk) 10:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Seconding support of block of involved IPs and semi-protection of involved articles, as IPs replies show he has no intention of listening to the now no less than four editors telling him he is wrong, his continued insults towards anyone disagreeing with him, and his continued pestering of IllaZilla on his talk page despite this current ANI. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thirding support of block, and offering NZ$0 (or £0 if you'd prefer) to the IP to stop this. TFOWR 16:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Repeated attempted outing

Despite being warned, User :Breein1007 is repeatedly , posting what he believes to be my real name on my talk page. I would like an admin to take steps to put a stop to this harassment. RolandR (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a ridiculously inappropriate twist of the truth on so many levels. First of all, Roland makes it appear above as if he warned me and then I posted his full name twice. If you take a look at the timestamps, you'll see that he is misrepresenting things. Let's assume he didn't do that on purpose. Moving on. If you take a look at his talk page, you will see other editors referring to him by full name. He doesn't have any complaints about that. Only with me, for some reason. It is worth noting that we have previous history and he has shown a repeated pattern of reverting my edits in the Israeli-Arab area on Misplaced Pages, often without edit summaries or discussions. Finally, it is important to consider that the username "Roland Rance" redirects to RolandR's page. Calling this an attempted outing or harassment is so ridiculous that it's funny. He might as well accuse me of tainting his name; that would have a better chance of being true. Anyway, I have better things to do. Have fun, Breein1007 (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You were asked to stay off his talk page and not to use his full name. You did both. Obvious disruption is obvious. I'd support a block until this user can ensure he's not going to continue with disruptive behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:Outing does not support your analysis. "Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Misplaced Pages." He can't demand that I don't use his name if he has made it public and kept it public... that's nonsense. Breein1007 (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the second diff was posted after his warning. But I'm not sure it's outing when it seems to be a common assumption, going back to the first note on his talk page. See . And at this writing, it is indeed posted higher on his talk page, here. And while only admins can currently see this, I wonder whether this edit (not oversighted or suppressed; deleted after an AfD found the article merited deletion) doesn't take "outing" off the table in the spirit of "unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information." He doesn't seem to have taken exception to claims about his identity here. --Moonriddengirl 13:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this isn't a clear-cut case of outing, as Roland has previously posted his identity as pointed out above. However, it would be a clear case of disruption if any user were to continue using his full name after being asked not to. So I suggest Breein1007 stops this harassment (yes I'll call it that), and that this all gets cleared up asap, as the longer it stays here the more people (like me, not that I'm going to do anything with it) will know the original posters identity... Peter 13:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Posting to his talk page after being told not to is harassment, using his full name with that makes the intention very clear.--Crossmr (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Did I say that it had anything to do with WP:OUTING? No I didn't. I said you were asked not to use his full name and not to post on his talk page and you persisted in your harassment by doing both. Whether it's OUTING or just plain harassment it doesn't really matter. Since you don't seem to get it at all, I'd strongly suggest a block until you read up on the relevant policies and wiki guidelines on behaviour and demonstrate you understand them.--Crossmr (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

After a quick look at his block log and the fact that he apparently knows what it means to be told to stay off someone's talk page, I'd suggest at least a week as he seems to have had a little trouble getting it the last few months.--Crossmr (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I think "outing" comes into it via the header title: "Repeated attempted outing." There may be some harassment going on, but I don't think this is actual outing, given the circumstances. --Moonriddengirl 17:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, that's true, but using someone's full name when it's an "open secret" or not readily and intentionally public has the same chilling effect as outing - it's as if to say (in my best 60's villain voice), "I know who you are". --B (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but so do we all. As User:Fences and windows points out below and Breen points out at Roland's talk page, User:Roland Rance redirects to User:RolandR. And until he archived it (well after the filing this report), the name was already in use on his own talk page. I'm afraid that I have to agree with Fences and windows on this one; a harassment block may be appropriate based on the overall pattern (I haven't looked closely), but there's no claim to protection under Misplaced Pages:Outing when you've already outed yourself. --Moonriddengirl 18:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

What I think is relevant from the policy is this, "If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, their wishes should be respected, though reference to self-disclosed information is not outing." So while RolandR did not (that we are aware of) make any effort to redact the information, he did ask the user not to refer to him by his (I guess we're supposed to say "alleged") full name on his talk page. That he did it again is what really sets me off. --B (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

However, I'll note again that his alleged full name was already in use on his talk page and had been for years: . If somebody asked me not to refer to them by a particular name, I would certainly refrain from doing so. It seems like taunting to do otherwise. Again, perhaps a harassment block is appropriate. But, still, it is not outing, not even within the spirit of "their wishes should be respected", when they are still actively displaying the name. He had made no visible effort to distance himself from it before threatening to block Breein for using it. --Moonriddengirl 18:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

For some reason, Miszabot did not archive some old comments, but left them on my talk poage. Following the comments earliuer in this discussion, I have rectified this. RolandR (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Breein1007, now that you've been asked not to post what you believe to be RolandR's real name (and any other personal information) can we assume that you won't do this again? TFOWR 14:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

And stay off his talk page, he's been told he isn't welcome there.--Crossmr (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• I would support a block for continuing in the behavior after being asked to stop, as Crossmr says, breen just doesn't seem to get it'. Off2riorob (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support block - There is also a current arbcom enforcement request concerning this user at Misplaced Pages:AE#User:Breein1007. Though I had felt, when looking at that page before, that the issues therein did not warrant sanction, this incident makes it much less possible to view the user's behavior in a positive light. It is impossible to view in a favorable light using his full name in this particular incident. Even if you have a user whose real name is public, you address him as John or perhaps Mr. Smith under some circumstances, but not John Smith. I'm inclined to support a lengthy block and upon his return, either an outright topic ban or at least some kind of strong probation. --B (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
• People who out themselves on Misplaced Pages don't get protection under WP:OUTING. User:Roland Rance redirects to User:RolandR, RolandR extensively edited the now-deleted Roland Rance, and RolandR said in April 2009 that "I edit using my own name" when his editing was raised at the COI noticeboard. RolandR can ask someone not to post on his talk page, but the name issue is a red herring. If he is blocked merely for "outing", I will unblock. Fences&Windows 18:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • While it's true that RolandR did out himself, WP:OUTING addresses respecting the wishes of people who out themselves, but change their mind. Roland asked Breein1007 not to use his real name, then Breein1007 responded by using it again. I'm sorry, but I don't consider that to be acceptable conduct. Whether we call it outing, harassment, or being disruptive, whatever it is I don't believe to be acceptable. --B (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Accounts are here are for encyclopedia building, citing sources, echoing them in article text and if need be, talking about those sources with other editors. Knowing a user doesn't want their name flaunted about, but doing it anyway, is harassment meant to sway editorial content, which is blockable. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked Breein1007 for 7 days. PhilKnight (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous thread and one of the worst blocks I've seen in a while. I'll refrain from leaving comments on User talk:Roland Rance. Toddst1 (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether or not the block was "technically right" but there's a little rule I follow that generally keeps me out of trouble. If multiple editors in good faith ask me to stop doing "X" then I stop doing "X". "X" could be anything. It could be a request to not use someone's real name. It could be a request to not change "$" into "US$". It could be a lot of different things. If "X" was something I felt strong enough about, then I would discuss the issue with those concerned but I certainly wouldn't keep doing "X" after multiple reasonable requests to stop. If it turned out that there was a consensus that I shouldn't do "X", (or in the case of using someone's real name, that editor alone) then I would drop it and go do something else. Follow such a rule and it's unlikely that one would ever come close to getting blocked, legitimately or illegitimately. (of course that doesn't excuse bad blocks) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you please delve a bit more into why you think this thread is ridiculous? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for Todd, but I'd be happy to delve. Gwen, it appears to me you haven't been following the discussion. If what Breein says is correct, Roland does not object when people he likes or agrees with use his real name (if it indeed is -- I have no idea). When someone he disagrees with politically uses readily available info that RR put on his own user page, it magically becomes "outing." It's a hideously ill-considered block, using that rationale. As for harrassment, well, I've had a very nasty user post to my talk page repeatedly, and refuse to stop despite being warned. Block length? Nil. People tend not to care about that sort of thing here, unless things get political... as I think you yourself can attest, Gwen. IronDuke 19:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

What? Politics? Here? I'm shocked... shocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Extremely unfair block. I believe that now PhilKnight should either unblock Breein or block an admin Toddst1 for this edit. Of course neither one of them done anything wrong, nothing to get blocked for even for a minute, leave alone 7 days!--Mbz1 (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

With User:Roland_Rance an RD to User:RolandR, how can he be unhappy with someone calling him by the former? I was thinking he didn't want his name openly known, but he clearly doesn't care. This isn't outing, the block should be lifted. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely right Gwen Gale, and you are an administrator with the great experience and courage. So, why don't you lift the block yourself, and maybe even warn rolandr for filing false reports on AN/I and for his battleground mentality?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I've emailed the blocking admin. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't object if you want to unblock. PhilKnight (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

PhilKnight, it might be a good idea to apologize to Breein for the unfair block. I understand mistakes with the blocks may and will happen, but in such cases an apology will be nice.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I've unblocked, I think the block was a good faith misunderstanding, outing is a big worry here. I have no on-wiki comments for User:RolandR about this, but I do understand why someone said this thread was ridiculous, it was. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

My objection, as I noted when I made this complaint, was that Breein's repeated edit and use of a real name, despite my request that he stop, was clearly intended as harassment. The removal of the block suggests that he is entitled to repeat such edits. I request that he be formally warned not to do so. RolandR (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You post was named " Repeated attempted outing", and not "harassment". Stop gambling the system--Mbz1 (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

He didn't gamble anything. The behaviour was part of his original complaint and I clarified the issue at the beginning. This was a clear case of harassment. A poor title choice doesn't give a user freedom to go harass someone.--Crossmr (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, nice catch on the typo -- pretty much obliterates Mb's point, doesn't it? And harrassment? I've had worse done to me and been met with yawns. IronDuke 01:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Roland, you got the (bad) block you wanted, angering Breein and embarrassing Phil. I'd leave it alone. IronDuke 21:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Intentional harassment is a bad block? Wow.--Crossmr (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

A 7 day block for a bit of unpleasantness? Please. If that was SOP, we'd be handing them out like candy. IronDuke 01:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Given previous behaviour, yes, it is completely appropriate and several people supported it.--Crossmr (talk) 03:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support block for evident disruptive behaviour solely intended to piss off another editor. Whether it's technically outing or not, it serves no useful purpose and should not be tolerated. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 21:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

RR, in my unblock post I brought that up. Outing is not taken lightly here. If you have username worries you can do something about them by first having a look at Misplaced Pages:Username_change. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Since the editor has been unblocked, I have now issued them with a 4im warning not to refer to RolandR by their RL name since they have been requested not to. My RL name is readily available, but I would not take kindly to being referred by it and if I asked someone not to do so again I would expect that wish to be respected. If anyone can provide a rationale by which referring to an account, as against their WP identity and contrary to their wishes, by their real name is of a benefit to the encyclopedia then I will withdraw the warning. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • No - you are exactly correct. Much as I respect User:Gwen Gale, the original block was valid. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Can an official limit to useless pile-ons on Breein be instituted? Poorly conceived extra warnings will not help. Yes, Breein could have been a bit more attentive to Roland's new, special needs, but this was a block fishing expedition that, unfortunately, turned Breein into a victim (and Phil, too, though he is in part to blame himself). IronDuke 22:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Either way, the user has been both asked (by me) and warned (by LHvU) not to bring this up again, he knows now and I'd support a block for harassment (not outing) if this does stir up again. That said, I think the link between those usernames and the overall background on this show untowards sniping by both editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

@LessHeard vanU, I cannot provide "rationale by which referring to an account, as against their WP identity and contrary to their wishes, by their real name is of a benefit", but even less so I can provide rationale why addressing to an account by its widely available real name should have been reported as "Repeated attempted outing". Maybe you could fint that rationale, and if you cannot maybe you will consider issuing the warning to rolondr, just to be fair,you know.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

This seems to me to be more an issue of civility than anything else. There are many editors whose real life names are "known", accurately or otherwise, through being outed on other websites than this. However, if an editor expresses a wish to to have their RL name not mentioned here, we should respect that, and not argue the toss about policies and guidelines. Commonsense and the co-operative nature of this project should make that obvious. Rodhullandemu 23:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

BINGO! --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu, the filer real name is mentioned on his talk page of this very site by the filer himself. But here's the point, if the filer filed the report to civility noticeboard, it would have been probably go with no any sanctions taken against Breein. As a matter of fact such report would have sound laughable. So instead the filer came to this board and filed it under "Repeated attempted outing". It was done to attract an attention, and to maximize the possible sanctions. Such behavior of the filer deserves at least a warning.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've just checked, and I don't see it there. But perhaps that's not the point, as expressed briefly but eloquently by Ron Ritzman above. I'm not saying that the parties here are entirely free of criticism, but I do stand by my previous comment. It's a matter of basic respect, elderly redirects and Talk page mentions notwithstanding. Rodhullandemu 23:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Breein shouldn't have been poking his buttons and Roland shouldn't have filed the report in the way he did. I think that both should understand that from reading the discussion and doubt anymore admonishment is necessary. If we are to switch gears to Roland I think it should be done as a separate report at AE. We could also just drop it for now.Cptnono (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

@Rodhullandemu It is here. @Cptnono, disagree with you. There's not enough material to file AE on rolandr,but a warning for his report at this board should be issued IMO, and then the matter should be dropped.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Both editors should take the hint and stop sniping at each other now, because both will be unhappy if this spins up into more warnings, or worse. Would someone be willing to close this thread, please? Gwen Gale (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Gwen, I wonder if Phil would be willing to apologize, or at least admit he was wrong? I'd ask the same of Roland, but, well... IronDuke 01:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Why? I don't think he was wrong, and several other people don't think he's wrong.--Crossmr (talk) 03:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Gwen, I'm sorry but that was a horrible unblock. Regardless of whether or not Outing was an issue, Roland asked him not to use his full name and to cease posting on his talk page. He went there and intentionally did both of those things to harass him. It's a clear case of disruptive behaviour and he didn't show any indication of getting it even though he knew what being told to stay off someone's talk page meant (As demonstrated by him telling an George to stay off his talk page). Your claim on his talk page that the original block was uncalled for is false and only enables him, I'd ask you to retract that (and black kite agrees with me above), and in fact he still continues to not get it. Yes, outing wasn't the issue, but harassment was. The block could be invalid for that, but a block was warranted, if yo uwanted the right words on it he could have been unblocked and blocked again.--Crossmr (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"Horrible?" Overstate much? If this behavior is disruptive, there need to be massive blocks handed out. Phil appears to have gotten fooled by a misleading header. We should all move on, but if blame were to be assigned, it would be 1) Roland, for a frivolous and misleading report 2) Phil for so easily falling for it and 3) Breein for not playing as nicely with others as he should. IronDuke 01:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

No, not at all. His title might have been misleading, but the report wasn't. Breein was told to stay off the talk page and not use the name, he then went and did both to harass him. Maybe outing wasn't the best title, but it doesn't give Breein a pass to do what he did.--Crossmr (talk) 03:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I see this descending into an unnecessary personal issue between two editors that, as usual here, has been blown out of all proportion. Comments about AE are irrelevant. My take is that if RolandR had wanted to hide his real name, that could have been more effectively handled, perhaps by WP:RTV; but I can't criticise him for not knowing that. However, if one editor asks another not to use a prior (and possibly RL) name here, it is only courteous to do so. It shouldn't matter whether the information is publicly accessible - and that is because we frequently reject publicly available information on the basis of WP:BLP because it it not reliably sourced. If we do that for our articles, it makes no sense not to do it for our contributors. Rodhullandemu 01:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

  It seems to me that a lot of people are trying to focus on the "outing" and ignore the real issue. Breein was told to stay off his talk page and not use his real name. His response was to go to Roland's talk page and do both: .Whether we want to quibble over "outing" is irrelevant. It's harassment. Users being told to stay off another's talk page has a long history here of being respected and enforced. Breein demonstrates a couple weeks ago that he understands that concept .--Crossmr (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, I can tell you from personal experience, most people care not at all when someone's precious talk page is invaded, much less do they hand out 7 day blocks. IronDuke 01:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

And I can tell from personal experience that the opposing sides of wikpedia's I-P battleground will show up on AN/I every time to support their factions and oppose the others, regardless of the facts on the ground or the details of the case at hand. "My fellow partisan is right, and his/her/its opponents are wrong" carries the day here. I see it in IronDuke, I see it in Mbz1 above. This is the sorta thing that needs to be clamped down on by the community. Hard. This is why I have largely abandoned the topic area and no longer have a scrap of it on the watchlist. Tarc (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I can only say that your comment, combined with your spotless history of anti-Israel editing, reinforces that you have chosen wisely. IronDuke 02:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I cannot speak about Tarc's editing, but his general observation here is dead on. Pro-Israel and pro-Palestianian editors consistently act en bloc on various noticeboards and at ArbCom. I assume (but don't know at first hand, because I try to stay away from the quagmire of Israel/Palestinian-oriented articles) that they do the same on articles and talk pages as well. I think their actions do need to be curtailed, because their block-voting and -commentary makes it extremely difficult to ascertain what the rest of Misplaced Pages thinks about whatever issue is as hand. There may be a need for a blanket ban from Misplaced Pages space of a significant number of editors who are consistent in this behavior pattern, perhaps for six months or a year. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can speak to his editing, so please do take my word for it. As for bloc editing, I'm sure that goes on on both sides, just as it does on many nationalist/ethnic subjects, as well as abortion, Scientology, climate change, etc. "Blanket" bans isn't a clumsy solution, it's part of the problem. The people who are the most passionate about these subjects are (certainly in the case of the I-P area) usually far and away the most knowledgeable. The best course is to control that passion, not ban it. Also, this is kinda off topic. If you want to come by my talk page and continue the discussion, I'm all ears (or eyes, anyway). IronDuke 03:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Ken, my editing is best described as anti-stupidly-partisan, and starting with one of IronDuke's old cohorts, the famous Zeq, the Israeli fanclub seems to have no limit of that type. That topic area already saw one good sweep a year or so ago when many high-profile names were booted out by ArbCom. But this current case shows that the broom didn't quite reach all the nooks and crannies. Tarc (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think your comments here belie your self-evaluation. If you must continue to vent spleen, could you do it elsewhere? The reboot below is a good reminder to us all. IronDuke 03:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

What I speak is the truth, and if you don't like being called out, rightly, for being a part of the problem, then by all means stop being one. Tarc (talk) 04:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

@IronDuke: Under normal circumstances I would be all in favor of focusing on the specifics of this case, but, really, that is part of our current problem. If, in each new instance, we only look at the circumstances of the present case, without putting it into the context of what's happening throughout the project, we miss the forest because of our focus on the trees. These cases are generated by the animosity between Pro-Israel and Pro-Palestinean editors, and no amount of dealing with specific incidents is going to put a damper on the general problem. This is something that needs to be dealt with on a meta-level a step or two above the petty harrassment and outing and incivility and edit warring complaints. Failure to recognize the global problem will simply guarantee that local problems will continue to multiply. I would urge admins to start taking a firmer line against infractions by both sides of this issue, and start handing out some significant blocks to convince folks that Misplaced Pages is serious about their not inflicting their ideological differences on the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Reboot

Being asked to stay away from an editors userpage, is that something which should be honored?

Being asked to not refer to the editor by what is understood to be their real name, is that something to be honored?

These are the questions that we should be considering. Unomi (talk) 03:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the focus, Unomi.

Yes, one should respect requests to stay away from user talkpages, and those who fail to respect this should be warned once, then blocked.

Yes, people should not refer to editors by a name they do not wish to be called, whatever that is. I just had an editor tell me he didn't like how I shortened his name, so I honored his request. That is not, FWIW, what happened here, AFAICT. I believe that Roland has publicized his own name here, and had friends call him by it, then demanded that one, and only one, editor not call him this name. Then, when that request was not honored, used it as a pretext to launch this frivolous thread with ensuing drama. (If I have facts wrong here, I welcome a correction.) People who abuse this process should, at the very least, be firmly told not to do it again. IronDuke 03:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

A clearly blatant attempt by RolandR to silence an editor with an opposing view.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Breein could have said what he wanted elsewhere without doing it on his talk page and without using his full name. Doing so intentionally was an intent to disrupt.--Crossmr (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen this brought up here numerous times, and blocks and warnings have been issued for it. Breein has been blocked several times in the last few months for his behaviour and can't quite seem to bring it inline with the community. Escalating blocks is the only way to deal with that. Quickly unblocking and calling the block wrong does nothing more than enable him.--Crossmr (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes and yes to both. The support for this Breein person to get away with doing what he has done generally comes from like-minded POV warriors who are bringing more heat than light to the situation. Tarc (talk) 04:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Just tuning back in to this fiasco. It's clear that this was not outing and that the report of outing was used as a ruse to attract attention and garner a block. At first blush I might have blocked as well. However upon further investigation, it clearly was not outing and it's clear to me that both editors involved (Breein1007 & Roland) were being dicks. Perhaps some analysis:

• Blocks warranted for this? Certainly not unilatarally. This is a symptom of much of what's wrong with drama boards here on WP. Drama brings action. I'm sure I've been lured into similar action on more than a few occasions.
• Was Phil well intentioned? Yes, without question.
• Did Gwen do what she thought was best? Again, yes, without question.
• Are both admins fully competent? Again, yes, without question.
• Should we all do something else now? Probably.

Good night folks. Toddst1 (talk) 07:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Need a Range Block

The date change vandal who has been plaguing India related articles is back. The range block which was in place for two months expired yesterday and his back with a vengeance. I request an extension of the block on the IP range - 117.204.112.0 - 117.204.127.255 (only 4096 possible IPs affected). --Sodabottle (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked 117.204.112.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for three months, since the one-month block on the same range expired, and this range covers the most recent vandal 117.204.125.94 whose date-modifications you reported above. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ed!.--Sodabottle (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Addition of unsourced material by Bottracker

Bottracker (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

• This editor keeps adding unsourced material into this article, claiming that Nigeria's cinema "success can also be attributed to the Ghanaian film industry". He has previously done so with the exact wordings earlier in April 2010 via IP.
• Next, the editor keeps removing a wayback-template from a reference, and as a result the reference has a dead link.
• Lastly, editor keeps adding a spam link into the article.

Editor has been cautioned to refrain from doing so, however to no avail. After I reverted his edits, he placed level 3 & level 4 warning templates on my user talk page. When you check this edit, you will notice that there is a reference on the controversial material about "Nigerian Cinema's success can be attributed to the Ghanaian film industry". However, this reference was not provided by the editor, was already in the article, and has absolutely nothing to do with the added material. It appears as if the editor simply placed his addition within an already existing reference to create the impression as if the added material is properly referenced. Since I do not want to be involved in or be accused of edit warring, I have brought the issue to this board. This is not a content dispute. This is an issue of an editor repeatedly placing unsourced material into an article. Please look thoroughly into this matter. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked Bottracker indefinitely upon review of his edits to Cinema of Nigeria and use of vandalism warnings to attempt to suppress Amsain's raising valid concerns, per the details noted above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hoax gone international

A few months ago a sockmaster created articles or otherwise promoted a hoax around a supposed model named Brenda Williams, and it looks like the sockmaster is promoting the same hoax on the Spanish Misplaced Pages. Can an admin deal with this?  Mbinebri  22:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't in the English Misplaced Pages's jurisdiction. There are plenty of English speaking administrators of the Spanish Misplaced Pages. Just explain the situation to one of them.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I tagged it for speedy deletion. Evil saltine (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you userfy Sonic Mega Giveaway to my userspace?

Can you userfy Sonic Mega Giveaway to my userspace? thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EyeLoveKitties (talk • contribs) 23:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be a hoax, Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Sonic_Mega_Giveaway. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Why do I think User:BandTigerTom is deeply linked with User:EyeLoveKitties? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by 58.96.94.12

58.96.94.12 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has repeatedly engaged in the behavior described in WP:Disruptive Editing, including "Is tendentious", "Cannot satisfy Misplaced Pages:Verifiability", and "Does not engage in consensus building". This user has been repeatedly warned (on his Talk page and on the article Talk page) that his edits violate WP:Truth, WP:NPOV, and contradict the many WP:Reliable Sources which the article has. The user has refused to respond to these requests that he stop his edits which violate Misplaced Pages policy. Here are diffs of his edits: , , , and .--71.0.146.150 (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Try WP:AIV instead of here. Pilif12p's Sock :  Yo  00:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

User Mk5384

Mk5384 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user is currently on a 1-week block following up on a 55-hour block for various forms of contentiousness. Venting is one thing, but he's threatening to sock and "settle scores" with various editors. His talk page access is currently blocked, but I have notified him of this posting nonetheless. I pose this as a question of whether he should be indef'd and/or banned. I'm just one of many that he had a run-in with on the Black Jack Pershing article, and his approach seems to have gone on from there after he lost that battle. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I had intended to bring up MK's behavior at RFC/UC, but this has now taken a much more serious tone. MK has been involved in a string of disruptive edits, personal attacks, and harassment like edits for quite some time. The complete listing of evidence links (which I had planned to use for the RFC) can be found here. -OberRanks (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps an RFC would be more productive than a discussion here. This editor clearly wants to make good contributions, but is having a really bad week. It must seem that everyone is against MK, and no one wants to talk about the real issues (as MK sees them). In my experience, "Unblock request / declined" is not a good venue for resolving such situations; nor is AN/I. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

A bad week dating back to March? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, RFC would probably be best. In addition, if MK does return after his block and engages in even more personal attacks, it is likely he will receive an extremely lengthy block in any event. Same can be said if he uses sockpuppet accounts of ips while blocked during the next week. -OberRanks (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think an RFC/U would be a necessary first step here -- we shouldn't jump straight to a ban discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Any chance of holding off with the RFC/U until MK5384 is in a position to respond? Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

How about we open a RFC/U, but let him have access to his talk page, so someone can post what he posts on his talk page to the RFC? Then he would be in a position to respond. If he abuses his talk page rights again, he can be reblocked without talk page access, and the RFC will go on without his opinion. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I had not planned to file the RFC until after MK was unblocked plus a few days as well to give the editor time to ease back into editing and perhaps calm down a bit. It still might not be necessary if MK returns, agrees to work with others, and does not continue to engage in disruptive behavior. Its really up to MK at this point. And, in addition, we're not dealing with a vandal or a troll, we're dealing with a productive editor who needs some help. I truly believe there is hope here. -OberRanks (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It's possible that the threat to sock and settle scores was just bluster. If nothing of that sort apparently happens during the next week, maybe we should forget about that and just focus on future behavior issues, if any. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Why would an RfC be a necessary first step? A block is to prevent disruption. We have an open ended threat of disruption. He should be indef'd until such a time that the community is satisfied there is no further thread of disruption. Has an RfC on a user ever solved anything? ever?--Crossmr (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

ObDisclose: I'm the "corrupt admin" that issued the initial 55 hour block, based on block record, and ignoring warnings and advice given to change approach. I have no strong view on what the appropriate next step is, just wanted to self-identify. Would be happy to see an outcome that ended up retaining a productive editor but lost the troublesome behavior. ++Lar: t/c 19:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Doubt so, read WP:OWB for more details. Best. --Dave 19:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, sure. But I still would be happy to see it. (and it's actually more probable than me winning the lottery, which I would also be happy to see!) ++Lar: t/c 17:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed indefinite block

Considering the unsettling behavior and threating of block evasion, this leads me to believe that sooner or later we will have to eventually block him indefinitely. I agree on Crossmr's statement that requesting for comment on a user's conduct will never fix anything. Rohedin 15:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If there were evidence of block evasion, that would be different (and would be covered by WP:EVADE, which says that e.g. a reset of the block might be in order). If there has been any disruption since the block began, please post diffs. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 17:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No evidence thus far, however MK stated he was going on a trip for 2 days and would return . If there is to be sockpuppet and/or evasion tactics with further disruption, over the weekend will be the time that it occurs. Based on MK's behavior, I too am beginning to believe that eventually this user will be indef blocked, but I will still file the RFC after MK is unblocked in the hopes that it does some good. -OberRanks (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason for an extension to indef at this time. Let the block go to completion and see where things stand then. ++Lar: t/c 17:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

What Lar said. Keep paying out the WP:ROPE for a while, the result might even be reform. Guy (Help!) 15:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The biggest fear that I (or any editor has) have is that he will come back, make socks, harass, and waste time of all editors involved. Maybe an indef block is not the best option now, if anything continues, I would not oppose. Old Al (Talk) 17:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I was pretty upset at how fast Mk went from zero to nasty with me over a minor capitalization issue, but that said, a person actually CAN have a bad couple of months, things like losing a job, or death of a loved one, sickness, or lots of other chronic things can get someone off kilter and they may not want to discuss a personal matter publicly on wiki, yet the emotionality comes through nonetheless. So maybe we should give him one more chance. I'm in favor of seeing if he will accept a mentor or something like that. However, that does need to come with a clear understanding that threats of disruption and such are not acceptable, and neither is use of personal attacks and insults. Montanabw 00:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The block is due to expire Tuesday, I believe, so I guess we'll see what happens. My projection based on past experience with this user is that MK will probably immediately file an ANI report again me, Lars, and anyone else who participated in this block. While MK might very well calm down and be civil, the underlying issue is that MK truly believes he is doing nothing wrong. And I also agree this is probably tied into real world events and/or who MK is in the real world. MK has advertised that he is British but also has stated openly he lives in the United States. I believe we may be dealing with an exchange student, or perhaps someone who is young. That is of course rampant speculation on my part and I do not wish to pry into MK's real world identity - just an observation. -OberRanks (talk) 01:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose an indef block (I get the feeling that "permanent" is meant by indef). Let's not jump the gun here. Mjroots (talk) 05:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This is normal behaviour for Mk, unfortunately. He can be reasonable but he can also be completely unreasonable and that has caused significant trouble. He really needs to understand that it's time to stop the aggression. Guy (Help!) 10:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

User:PM800

User:PM800 appears to have a major problem with remaining civil. Within the last couple of months he has been warned at least twice to stop, but continues. Some examples: , and the most recent on my talk page. As you can see, the user has a problem with calling people names and such, and being just uncivil. So I was wondering if anything can be done, thanks.--Yankees10 01:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Yankees10

User:Yankees10 and I just had a disagreement over the content of Brady Anderson. I was willing to discuss the issue with him, but instead he tried to bully me by threatening to report me for a violation that I had actually not committed. When I pointed out to him that he was wrong, he then used some profanity on my talk page. I would like to recommend a temporary ban for this user.

Also, when he created the section directly above, he did not post the required notice on my talk page. - PM800 (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like both of you have incivility and edit-warring problems. Who cares whether or not it's in the infobox? His career home runs are there anyway. Besides, the article needs actual work rather than stuff like that. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Runaway Bride (Nancy Drew)

Can an admin review this AfD? I do not thing it was an appropriate one for a non-admin closure as it was not unanimous -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Though this is not an AFD I would have closed, it's not backwards enough for immediate admin attention IMHO. Your best course of action is to discuss it with the closer and then take it to deletion review. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Morenooso notified of this thread. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Too many users are doing non-admin closures these days. They're not needed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Two weeks for an AfD? That's plenty of time. No consensus means the article is kept for now. What's the problem? Kafziel 03:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh the close itself was ok. An admin would likely have closed it "keep" or "no consensus" with an extended rationale and if it goes to DRV I'll endorse the close. However, it was a lot closer then the snout count would indicate. AnmaFinotera was right to question the close, she just didn't need to do it here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There are differences between "non-consensus" and "keep", at least for some editors. If a merge discussion, for example, were started, and the AfD is keep over NAC, there are certain editors who would vehemently argue against a merge discussion because the AfD ended in "keep". Articles that end an AfD on a NAC instead keep are also eligible for re-noming to AfD sooner. (note, just giving general answer, and not saying either may be applicable here - but it is important) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I called for a keep on this as well, bit this closure is highly inappropriate; counting the nom there were 3 calls for deletion, which is absolutely not a case for a snow close. I'd really like to see an admin revert this closure and have a go at it, so yea, this was appropriate to bring to AN/I. Tarc (talk) 04:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This wasn't a snowball close; it had been open for 14 days. I would have theoretically closed it as "no consensus to delete", myself, despite good arguments from the delete side, so it really isn't something that should be summarily overturned. If anyone thinks the close was wrong, it can go to DRV. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

this is a particularly difficult case, as it appears that our policy for notability of books would clearly lead to a keep, while there is also good reason that this might not be the best solution for books in a series like this. That is the sort of close that a non-admin would be well advised to stay clear of, if for no other reason than if they close it , it is much more likely to be taken to deletion review. But that's where this belongs, not here. DGG ( talk ) 06:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly not clear that WP:NB would lead to a keep, because Carol Keene isn't a person but a name used by a wide variety of authors, and thus that clause most likely doesn't apply. What's the process for listing this at DR ? I've never listed an AFD discussion there as opposed to an undeletion request. Claritas § 07:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I brought it here, versus DRV, after reading Misplaced Pages:Non-admin closure, which seemed to indicate that inappropriate closures could be undone by an admin without the need to go through DRV. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

As someone who does a metric assload of non-admin closures, I have a love/hate relationship with WP:NAC. It's what's called a "supplemental essay". The actual "guideline" is here. WP:NAC is a common "interpretation" of that guideline. In other words, it's "advice" and damn good advice, especially to those who are not familiar with how AFD works. However, I would oppose any attempt to promote it to a full fledged guideline as instruction creep.

And yes, if a non-admin close were completely backwards, then it would be appropriate to ask an administrator to review the close. In the case of the AFD in question, I reviewed it yesterday and decided to leave it for an admin to close. My call would have been "no consensus". This was not the best of closes but IMHO it's not one that needs to be reversed. Trout slap the closer and move on. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd have closed this as no consensus. Same fate for the article... but this is not a non-admin close I'm a fan of. When there are delete !votes, it should be left for an admin to press the buttons. I'm giving serious thought to undoing this close and re-closing as no consensus, actually... Courcelles (talk) 11:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV

AIV is backlogged since a lng time, Could an admin check it?. Thanks Tbhotch 04:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done -FASTILY 06:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD etiquette

There are some editors who, when an AfD that they have started is running, continually badger any editor who !votes "keep" instead of allowing those editors to present their arguments and leave the merits of the arguments to be decided by the editor who closes the AfD.

This is something that really needs community-wide discussion. I'm not sure where the best venue for such discussion is. The continual badgering seems to me to breach WP:AGF and may also be heading in the direction of WP:DE. Any suggestions? Mjroots (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I've done that once, in an AfD which drew a lot of participation from new users who weren't familiar with the criteria which were being used. I didn't consider it 'badgering' so much as 'trying to give the supporters a fightin' chance to make a reasonable argument.' Am I the person you're thinking of, or is it someone else? Did you try talking to them? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 06:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

it's only fair to point out that this has been known to happen in the other direction also. (In fact , it even can happen after someone gives a compromise solution, such as merge or redirect, or suggests no-consensus or relist.) It's also necessary to distinguish between badgering, and trying to elucidate a problem with further questions. If done right, such a Q & A process can lead to consensus. I have seen it done right at AfD, maybe once or twice a week. As for how many times it's been done wrong, .... DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Once upon a time there was "Votes for Deletion", which is now known as "Articles for Deletion" because it's not a vote. Badgering shouldn't happen to be sure, but discussing the fate of the article is the purpose of AfD, not simply collecting enough "delete NN" or "keep ILIKEIT" votes. Responding to these statements to point out that no policy or guidelines are backing up their !vote is perfectly acceptable in my opinion. As long as the discussion is WP:CIVIL and on-topic, there shouldn't be any restriction on the length of discussion.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 07:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

FisherQueen, it wasn't you I had in mind. I also agree that continual badgering of !delete voters is just as bad.

In my opinon, the nominator shoud give their reasons for the nomination in the rationale. Any editor who either !votes "keep" or "delete" should give their reasons for the !vote there and then. There should be no further comment from the nominator on the vote, or from the !voter unless they are directly asked for a clarification (notification that WikiProject have been informed etc excepted) - yes, I've recently been guilty of this myself but I got a bit riled by what I saw as a possibly bad faith nomination and badgering from the nominator. It is for this reason I'm not going to seek any action against the editor in question over the particular AfD in question - what I want to achieve is an agreed set of ground rules for AfDs so that such badgering can be dealt with in future should it occur. Mjroots (talk) 08:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Verbal attacks on User:Jutta234

One new account has made a verbal attack in German on this editors talkpage, User talk:Jutta234.

"Du verdammte Sau! Tzuol (talk · contribs) 06:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)" <-- trans. redacted --> Google trans.

Another account made an attack shortly after the above, this time their username is itself an attack.

Hättest Du Jutta234 nicht blockiert! Jutta234 onaniert beim Scheïssen! (talk · contribs) 06:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
(If you had not blocked Jutta234! (< -- Username trans. redacted -->) Google trans.

2nd attack already reported at UAA as a usernam violation. -- 220.101 (talk) 07:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I have indef blocked the latter account. I have also deleted the revisions which were personal attacks - they are now not visible to non-admins -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Phantomsteve. I have also redacted the translations here. It's alright with me if you want to delete and revdel this whole section. Regards, --220.101 (talk) 07:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone know who this might be?

Kimberly camba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has twice recreated a deleted article, looking at the user's contributions I see the first act was to create a userspace draft, something I have never seen from a genuinely new user. The question is whether this is a legitimate alternate account or not. I'm not active in popular culture topics, does this ring any bells with admins who are? Guy (Help!) 07:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Guy, AGF dude. Maybe the user was a former anon and saw how things work? That we request articles sometimes be made in userspace. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

He's not assuming bad faith, simply asking for others' advice: The question is whether this is a legitimate alternate account or not. Seems fair to me. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 08:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I second that. Most of us were IPs before we were users. You threw around the term "NPOV" within 9 days of singing up for your account, which I don't think means you're socking, just that you had edited some before you signed up. I'd find it more suspicious if someone signed up without ever having edited before. Shadowjams (talk) 08:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's not WP:BITE the editor, ok? Did you ask them before bringing this to ANI? Basket of Puppies 08:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

And you did not inform this editor of this thread, as is clearly required. I will AGF it as a simple oversight. Basket of Puppies 08:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Which it was. Question remains: has anyone seen someone like this before? We have two G4s for the same article shortly after registering. Not an especially likely thing for a new user to do. I'm just checking that there isn't a duck quacking somewhere. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I can't see the deleted versions, but the first two articles they created Rakuto Tochihara and Kanzaki Shiori don't appear to have a delete log. Which deleted article did they recreate? Shadowjams (talk) 09:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Best Days of My Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and The Best Days Of My Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); also several recreations of Rakuto tochihara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and the deleted Miguel same (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I guess they are a fan of Japanese pop culture. Guy (Help!) 10:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Inventor

Inventor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been on Misplaced Pages for nearly four years, yet every single one of his edits is self-promotional. He was blocked for 31h last week for this. I tried LARTing this user in a deletion debate regarding his userpage, but he clearly doesn't get it. Can someone whack him a bit harder with a cluebat and/or banhammer please? MER-C 08:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the "promotional" aspect of his non-userspace edits, however IMO his userpage needs to be started anew - and his MfD defence is one of the most ridiculous I have ever heard. Deleting his userpage means the BP oil leak will never get solved? How is showing off your inventions on Misplaced Pages going to help cure the oil leak? S.G. _ping! 09:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Somebody needs a patent attorney, not a wiki page. Shadowjams (talk) 09:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Examples of self-promotional edits: -- all (but one!) inserting a mention of himself and/or his inventions. This is what he has to say about people who revert him: . Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, methinks. MER-C 09:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I generally agree with this, but seeing as the MfD is currently running, he has been given a final warning by OrangeMike, and technically hasn't made any 'bad' edits since then, I'm tempted to let the MfD delete his page and then watch him to see what happens (he might start editing productively :) ). If he makes any further edits along the same lines, I'd be perfectly happy to block for, say, a week, although an indef may be appropriate, dunno. Ale_Jrb 10:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

He's been at it for four years, what makes you think he'll stop? MER-C 10:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The account has existed for four years, that's true, but it's only made about 20 edits a year... and like half of them were to his userpage, which will get deleted, or user talk page. You're possibly overstating the extent of the problem a little bit. Either way though, I generally disagree with issuing a final warning, and then blocking them anyway even if they haven't done anything else. Ale_Jrb 10:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Tend to agree with Ale. He's been warned; as soon as he starts spamming again, if ever, let's indef him and be done with him... Salvio ( ) 11:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

User:TreasuryTag

TreasuryTag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user keeps being on my back about edits, not allowing them to be compelted and saying that you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages for making very simple, and quite reasonable edits. The user seems to revert whilst I am in mid-edit, seeming trying to create an edit war. Another example is that, even though a request for deletion has been denied for a vote on a page such as File:The Time of Angels illustrative image.jpg he has just re-instigated it.

I have been a Misplaced Pages contributor for over four years, and this user treats me like some two year old. It does rather appear that he/she wishes for a certain point of view on certain pages and won't let anyone else near them, spouting rules that seem to require inaccuracy, and over content he/she seems to have never seen.

If there is some rule that I have missed I apologies, but it does not seem sensible that Misplaced Pages can't actually have accurate information because one editor decides not. Thank you.  BRIANTIST  (talk) 09:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide some specific diffs to what you're concerned about? TT is well known around here, and while perhaps stubborn at times (I've disagreed with him/her before), I haven't known TT to be reckless with things like this. Shadowjams (talk) 09:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

He may be referring to when I objected to him adding an unencyclopedic copy-paste from the BBC website. Or perhaps he's confusing me with the multiple editors who had problems with his edit-warring to include rampant original research – really don't know what he means... :P ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 09:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

About a month ago, the DRV discussion on the image in question closed with no consensus, though the closing admin clearly noted that the image could be relisted at any time. I relisted it, waiting a tasteful few weeks first. Briantist (talk · contribs) seems to think that is acceptable to remove the {{ifd}} tag, and he used the semi-literate and rather unclear edit-summary of "delete already denied" – I have no further comment to make on this ridiculous issue. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 09:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You are not permitted to remove an XfD tag from an article or file while the discussion is in progress. Editors are entitled to relist files, especially as it has been some time and the closing admin of the DRV was specifically open to relisting... so with regards to the only example you gave, you're wrong as far as I can see. What admin action are you after here? Ale_Jrb 09:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. This is a case for Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

...well, it might be a case for WQA if he raised any substantive problems with me other than his own "delete already denied" intolerance... ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 09:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no point especially commenting on the merits of such a case here; in the event that a WQA is opened, comments can go there. I don't see any significant problems myself, but then I haven't gone through all the contribs and BRIANTIST may have other issues he wishes to bring to light. Ale_Jrb 09:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards